The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Civic Forum

Mr Speaker: During a debate on a motion on arrangements for obtaining from the Civic Forum its views on social, economic and cultural matters, moved by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on 6 February, a point of order was raised by Mr Peter Robinson as to whether the First Minister had misled the House.
The Deputy Speaker asked Mr Robinson to make available to my office papers to which he had referred. Subsequently, on 12 February, the First Minister raised a further point of order in response to the allegations made by Mr Robinson, and I indicated that he should supply to me the papers which, he ventured, showed that he had not misled the Assembly. I undertook to study both sets of papers and provide a response.
I have received both sets of papers and have given the matter careful consideration. It appears that a meeting of some kind took place under the auspices of the Civic Forum on 20 December in the morning, which considered and, indeed, suggested an amendment to a motion on the relationship between the Assembly and the Forum. The management committee of the Forum, meeting that same afternoon, agreed that that motion — amended, as it seems, that morning — should go forward to the Assembly.
It is clear from Mr Robinson’s comments and the correspondence that he has provided that the burden of his argument is that the meeting on the morning of 20 December was not competent to make decisions for the Forum as a whole. It is also clear that he is judging the conduct of the Civic Forum’s business against the standards and procedures followed by this Assembly and other public bodies with which he is familiar.
From my reading of the papers, it would appear that the Civic Forum does not operate in quite that way. For example, in the minute of the meeting of the management committee held on 20 December at 2.15 pm it is recorded that it was agreed that a quorum of 50% should be applied to plenary sessions and that decisions should be made only when a quorum was present.
Laying aside any other unusual features of this decision, it would seem that the management committee considered itself entitled to set down standing orders for the Civic Forum without reference to the body as a whole, or it could be that the minute is inaccurate or incomplete. If the former is the case, then a sub-group other than the plenary has much more substantial competence in respect of the body as a whole than would be customary. That could explain how the meeting of the morning of 20 December 2000, despite not being called a plenary, could speak for the Civic Forum as a whole. If, however, the minute is substantially inaccurate, and there is some evidence of inaccuracies in the documentation, it then becomes difficult to judge the question put to me on a perusal of the papers of the Forum.
To summarise, the First Minister advised the Assembly that the Civic Forum had considered the terms of the motion and had amended it. It appears that both the management committee and another meeting of less certain composition did, indeed, consider and amend the proposed motion. The First Minister advised that the date of the meeting was 20 December 2000. That also seems correct. From the evidence supplied to me by both Members, it appears that the procedures of the Forum’s meetings are different from the more formal arrangements that one would normally expect of a public body. I cannot see, on this basis, how one could rule that the First Minister had misled the House. Indeed, his actions were to the contrary.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the First Minister apologises to the Assembly, as is being requested by his Back-Benchers, have you looked at the e-mail from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of 19December, which makes it clear that it is a meeting of a group? How can one explain away an e-mail that refers to the meeting as a group? If you are correct that the quorum for a meeting of the Civic Forum is 50% — 30 members — this meeting, by the admission of the First Minister and his colleagues, was one of 20 people. Therefore, it did not meet the quorum and could not speak on behalf of the Civic Forum.

Mr Speaker: So far as the question of the quorum is concerned, the decision, according to the minute, was arrived at subsequent to that meeting and would not refer back.
There is an old adage that as one lives, one judges one’s neighbours. Usually, that is meant in a rather negative sense. The Member has given a more positive meaning to this matter: he has an expectation that the Civic Forum will operate the kinds of procedures and standards with which he may be familiar here.

Mr Peter Robinson: That applies to any public body.

Mr Speaker: That may be so. However, I have judged whether it would be appropriate for me, as Speaker, to enter into the question of how the Civic Forum conducts its business. I have taken the view that it would be improper for me to add to any confusion that may exist that this Assembly and its Speaker have any responsibility for, or any authority with regard to, the running of the Civic Forum.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely clear that the statements I made to the House were precisely accurate. Furthermore, it is clear, as you have said, that it is not proper for this House to sit in judgement of the Civic Forum and its procedures. It is also clear that if anyone has been misled, it is Mr Robinson.

Mr Peter Robinson: I have been misled by Mr Trimble.

Rt Hon David Trimble: It is Mr Robinson who has been misled by those who supplied him with partial information. I would have hoped that he would be capable of learning from his mistakes and have the decency to apologise for his quite improper behaviour.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not clear what the point of order is. If it is that it is not possible for this Assembly to raise questions about the Civic Forum, there may be a question as to whether the Forum, if it is to be an accountable body — and that is not wholly clear to me — is to be accountable to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If there is any question about issues being raised in the Assembly, the Committee of the Centre scrutinises the affairs of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That would be a proper place for the question of accountability of the Civic Forum to be raised and whether the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has any accountablity. I am by no means sure, in these somewhat muddy waters, that that is necessarily the case.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the kindergarten tantrum of the First Minister, it was fairly clear that he does not consider the Committee of the Centre to be pertinent in this respect. The motion that he brought to the Assembly was not submitted to the Committee of the Centre. I assume from your ruling that you do not think that the Speaker is competent to answer questions about the propriety of the arrangements for the Civic Forum. However, is it not proper for the Speaker to indicate that they are shambolic? The Civic Forum has become nothing more than the lapdog of the First Minister, whose office is even responsible for putting out the notices of its meetings. What degree of independence can there be from a body that is in the pocket of the First Minister?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have made it clear that I have no desire that there should be any confusion in the minds of Members or the public as to whether the Speaker has any authority in relation to, or bears any responsibility for, the procedures and standards of the Civic Forum. It is best for me to leave the ruling as I have made it. Other Members have made their comments, and we will leave them at that.

Assembly Business

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a matter that took place in the House on Tuesday 13 February in my absence. It was referred to me yesterday when I came to the House. Mrs Nelis, in a statement, said
"For example, I could talk about the thousands of Catholics who were forced to move south in 1969 as a result of pogroms by the RUC and the B-Specials. Some of them, for all we know, may be sitting in this Chamber. However, we do know that the founder of the DUP, Dr Paisley, was a prime mover in the lead-up to the pogroms in 1969 and certainly all pogroms since."
This is a very serious accusation — that I organised the persecution and massacre of Roman Catholics. I am very glad that these matters were looked into by a public, sworn inquiry — the Scarman inquiry. I have a copy of the report in my hand. Judge Scarman had this to say:
"[Dr Paisley] neither plotted nor organised the disorders under review, and there is no evidence that he was a party to any of the acts of violence investigated by us."
He also said that my role was no different from that of the political leaders on the other side of the sectarian divide. That gives the lie to the accusation that was thrown out in this House. However, I know that the Republicans do not want to see me in this House because on three occasions they attempted to kill me. When I was on the Albert Bridge with my son, they fired on the car in which I was travelling, and it was only by a miracle that the bullet did not penetrate the armoured vehicle. A group of gunmen also visited my church prayer meeting. Fortunately I was not —

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: It is not normal to take points of order during personal statements.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: They wanted to make an attempt on my life. Fortunately, I was not present. Then on the day that Rev Robert Bradford died, an IRA den was discovered opposite my house. They intended to murder me in my garden on the same day that Rev Robert Bradford was murdered. Those happen to be facts, and I am very glad that I am alive today to be able to make a statement in this House.

Mr Speaker: I remind the House that if a Member intends to make remarks about a Colleague, it is normal to inform him. That is standard procedure in other Parliaments. It may be too much to expect Members here to advise individuals of such an intention, but it could be done through the Speaker’s Office. It is unfortunate if points are made about other Members, particularly in their absence without due warning having been given. I understand that such remarks are sometimes made in the heat of a debate, rather than during a planned speech, but it is generally best if we can proceed in an orderly fashion.

Rt Hon David Trimble: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand your point about the desirability of giving notice to an individual about whom one intends to make a personal reference — that is quite right. It may not, however, be desirable for you and your Office to interpose. It would be easier if notes to convey such information were posted on the notice board, and it would have been appropriate if that had been done in this case.

Mr Peter Robinson: You may correspond with the Provos, but we do not.

Mr Speaker: Order.
I am grateful to the First Minister for his concern — I understand what he has said. I am not sure that notes on a notice board would be the best way of dealing with this, but my Office and I will continue to give the best possible service.
We will move on to the Second Stage of the Budget Bill — [Interruption].

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, though perhaps it could be said that I am seeking clarification. Since I am very often slammed and damned in my presence, and certainly in my absence, is it now perfectly legitimate for me to trawl through every Hansard and ask for a right of reply?

Mr Speaker: Well, Mr Ervine is a merciful and gracious man. I trust that he will not take the opportunity to trawl through Hansard, however fascinating the Official Report of this House may be, so that he can respond in that way. However, he is correct in saying that he and other Members about whom allegations have been made in the House are entitled to request an opportunity to make a statement, as Dr Paisley did this morning and as other Members have done on other occasions. Despite what has been said, if a Member intends to make such references, it helps if he advises the Speaker’s Office in advance, as Dr Paisley quite properly did.

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that Members who consider themselves to have been defamed have a right to reply. However, is it appropriate for a Member to quote, in his defence, from the report of a discredited British inquiry, such as the Scarman Report?

Mr Speaker: As ever, Mr Maskey has made an ingenious point of order. It is, of course, perfectly in order for a Member to quote, in his defence, anything he feels to be appropriate, as Dr Paisley did.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. To what extent can Members expect the protection of the Speaker in these situations? An accusation was made against Dr Paisley to the effect that he had committed a criminal act and that he was responsible for the murder of individuals. On a previous occasion, when an accusation was made in the House by a Member from this side against members of the Provisional Sinn Féin/IRA movement, you ruled on the issue. In fact, you even put the Member out of the Chamber. To what extent should the Speaker, whoever it was at the time, have ruled against the comments made about Dr Paisley?

Mr Speaker: I will look at that question. It is not one that I have addressed, since I was not in the Chair at the time. If it seems to me that it would be appropriate, in this case, for action to be taken, I will respond. If not, I shall simply leave the matter there. However, I will look into it as the Member has put this question to me.

Budget Bill: Second Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill [NIA 10/00] be agreed.
In moving this motion I wish to make some helpful points. The debate follows on from the Bill’s First Stage yesterday and the Supply motions for the 2000-01 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2001-02 Vote on Account, which were also considered and approved.
The Bill has been given accelerated passage because of the change to Standing Order40 agreed on February12. That procedure was made conditional on confirmation from the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee that the Committee is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Bill. That condition has been met, and the confirmation was given in a letter dated February16 from the Chairperson of the Committee to the Speaker.
Once again, I express my appreciation to the Finance and Personnel Committee for the attention that it has given and continues to give to matters of public expenditure and to related procedural issues.
The purpose of the Budget Bill is to give legislative effect to the resource estimates approved through the Supply resolutions passed yesterday. Given the wide-ranging and valuable debate, I do not intend to detain the House with unnecessary repetition of the detail implicit in the spending authorisation contained in the Bill. I gave much of that detail when I spoke yesterday. However, for the benefit of the Assembly I wish to summarise very briefly the main features of the Bill in accordance with the nature of the Second Stage debate envisaged under Standing Order30.
The Bill authorises the issuing of £195,599,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund in respect of the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2000-01 and appropriates this sum to specific services as set out in schedule1.
Yesterday, Members received copies of the detailed spring Supplementary Estimates booklet and the Vote on Account statement.
The Vote on Account provided for in the Bill for 2001-02 is to allow funds to continue to flow to public services for the early months of the incoming financial year until the Main Estimates can be presented to and considered by the Assembly. For the Vote on Account, the Budget Bill seeks the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the sum of £3806,414,000 and its appropriation to services as in schedule2. In addition, it seeks the Assembly’s authorisation for the use of resources amounting to £4305,870,000 as set out in schedule3.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
The concept of authorising resources is new and will be fully covered by amendments to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, which will begin its Further Consideration Stage later today. The necessary elements are being put in place to ensure clear, unambiguous and firm control by the Assembly over the use of resources by Departments and public bodies when the change to full resource budgeting takes effect from 1 April this year. At the same time, it is important to ensure that expenditure and resource use authorised under separate statutory provision can proceed in addition to that, subject to the limit set in the Bill. That is the purpose of clause4(2).
The change to resource budgeting represents a milestone in the development of better management and information systems about the true costs and impact of policies, with the aim of promoting better design policies and improved value for money in the future. Resource budgeting is the basis upon which Northern Ireland and other devolved territories will be required to develop and support their bids for resources under the Barnett rules.
I was most interested and, indeed, encouraged by the many views expressed by Members during yesterday’s useful debate. As I said yesterday, having had such a debate, there is little more that I can now add to the substance of the Budget Bill. I will, however, endeavour to respond to any points raised by Members.
As an Assembly, we are quickly coming to grips with our responsibilities to authorise and control public expenditure. The fact that we are doing so at a time of transition to a new accounting concept sets an additional challenge. However, this is a challenge that we gladly embrace, since the approval and control of resources epitomise the responsibilities we have accepted as public representatives.

Dr Esmond Birnie: In welcoming the Second Stage of the Budget Bill, it is worth repeating its historic nature. As has already been said, this is the first Budget by Northern Ireland people for Northern Ireland people in more than a quarter of a century. It is worth dwelling on the change that that represents.
The allocations of money are not an end in themselves; they are a means to an end. What is significant are the services and results that they will buy. The Executive need to work in conjunction with the scrutiny Committees to prove that devolution makes a positive difference. We are witnessing the beginnings of such a positive difference with, for example, free public transport for the elderly and the projected enhanced student support. This Budget represents the beginnings of a collective achievement by the Executive. In order to achieve further good results — in other words to get good value for money — this Budget offers at least two novel features, namely the public service agreements and the Executive’s programme funds. These, of course, will be subjected to scrutiny both in Committee and in the House in the near future.
A subject that seems to be of perennial interest in these debates, and that needs some enlightenment, is the regional rate and the principles of regional taxation. It seems that the level of business rates in Northern Ireland is broadly in line with that in Great Britain. My party is pleased that the Minister has been able to reduce the projected percentage increase in the business or commercial rate.
Anomalies remain in the ratings of individual business properties in various parts of the Province. For example, in Belfast there is evidence that properties on relatively depressed arterial routes carry the same rating burden as properties in prime locations in the city centre. That hardly seems equitable and should be the subject of speedy review. There is the linked issue of the base for commercial rates, which I will return to in a few minutes. I am glad that there is the prospect of a review of the ratings base. However, there are strong grounds for arguing that vacant properties should be subject to rates.
Domestic rates present a very different picture to business rates. The Northern Ireland Economic Council (NIEC) recently argued that policy formed for the Province must be based on sound evidence. That is a good piece of advice on which many parties in the Chamber should reflect. Some parties’ comments about the domestic rating situation have been less than frank, perhaps because they are overly excited at the prospect of a forthcoming general election.
Here are some of the relevant facts: in the year 2000-01, the total regional and district rates in Northern Ireland averaged £386. I base those figures on work carried out by the Assembly’s research and information department. That compares to an average council tax for England, in the same year, of £697. There is a considerable difference. However, we must remember that in England and Wales, householders pay a quite considerable, additional amount of money. In 1999-2000, they paid £248 on average to the private water companies for water rates. The total bill in England and Wales, equivalent to the combination of our district and regional rate, is around £950, whereas here it is under £400.
It is true that average incomes are lower in Northern Ireland. However, the average income for a property owner in Northern Ireland is around 90% of the England and Wales average. However, our average rates bill totals about 40% of that of England and Wales.
Given that, and that the projected increase in domestic rates is to be 7% in Northern Ireland — the same as this year’s projected council tax rate in England and Wales — it is hard to argue in principle against that percentage increase, however politically attractive it may be. No doubt, some Members will do so because of the anticipated election.

Mr Seamus Close: Does the Member accept that the cost of electricity, fuel, clothing, and so on, is substantially higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain and that that must be taken into consideration?

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Member for his point. He has been one of the main crusaders on the issue, but I continue to believe that the statistical evidence suggests that his crusade against the domestic rates increase is a misguided one. It is true that some categories of domestic expenditure in the Province are lower than in England and Wales, but not in every case. Average mortgage payments, for example, are lower here.
We must also bear in mind the Barnett formula. Our Executive will find it hard to argue for an increase in public spending in Northern Ireland — based on claims of higher needs — if at the same time we have a rates bill that is much less, on average, than that in England and Wales. Moreover, we are also trying to have a lower percentage increase in those rates.
Let me turn to the issue of whether we should change the base of local property taxation. I get the impression from some parties in the Chamber that they feel that a base in terms of assessed rental property values is an unfair one. It has been argued, for example, that families of different sizes or incomes living in the same house size and location are being treated unfairly because they end up paying the same domestic rates bill.
All that that argument is really saying is that the regional rate is not an income tax, which is simply a statement of the obvious. I wonder whether some of the parties who have opposed the 7% increase in the domestic regional rate are really arguing for a poll tax, which would get around this apparent — and I stress "apparent" — anomaly. I see that Mr Close is shaking his head. Perhaps they are arguing for a supplement to income tax — that people in Northern Ireland should pay a higher rate of income tax than other parts of the United Kingdom. Well, if that is what they — [Interruption].

Mr Francie Molloy: Does the Member accept that because of the way that the housing benefit system operates in relation to rate relief, it really is a form of poll tax? The number of people who live in a house becomes part of the housing benefit assessment.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I do not think that that is relevant to the point I am making.
If parties want to change the system of property taxation from the current assessed rental values, they must be very clear whether they want to base it on a poll tax standard or a change in the standard rate of income tax. We will need to think very carefully whether that is the road that we want to go down.
I favour keeping the tax base as wide as possible. Indeed, that is the position of the Ulster Unionist Party. A tax on property — in some form — should be included so that the rate of tax can be kept as low as possible.
Should we have what is, in effect, a separate or regional form of taxation in Northern Ireland? It can be claimed — and I must concede that there is some force in the arguments put forward — that the regional rate has become a sort of regional tax by default. Should we continue with that situation or should we attempt to move to a different form of regional taxation? The economic theory is that if we were to have a specific regional tax it might make all of us — and the Executive in particular — more responsible in our spending decisions. If the House and the Executive wished to present the case for an increase in public spending, we would also be answerable to the electorate for raising the revenues.
I suppose that, in theory, there is something attractive in that situation. It would certainly make Assembly Members and members of the Executive think twice about suggesting increases in public spending willy-nilly. However, that is very much a theoretical argument, and it is not clear how it would work in practice. I note that, although the Scottish Parliament has the power to increase income tax above the standard UK rate by 3p in the pound, that power has not yet been used. I do not think that it is likely to be used in the foreseeable future. As I said earlier, if Members want Northern Ireland to have an income tax rate higher than that in the rest of the United Kingdom, they must bear in mind the disincentive effects that it would impose.
That would be a further disincentive, over and above some of the points that Mr Close made in his intervention about our higher energy charges, for example. The whole issue of whether there should be regional discretion on taxation is one which this House will have to return.
My party and I welcome this Budget. As we consider tax levels and types of taxes, we should bear in mind that this House will be failing all the people of Northern Ireland if it does not spend as much time seeking to devise policies to increase the total amount of wealth in the Northern Ireland economy as it spends debating policies that seek to redistribute wealth.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: As Dr Birnie said, this is the first Budget that we have seen from a Northern Ireland Government for many years. The introduction of resource-based Estimates means that we can move away from cash Estimates alone, towards expenditure on resource and cash bases. The most important thing is that the Budget will now be administered by local Ministers, which will help to reassure the Northern Irish public that local issues will actually be addressed.
Departments now have the opportunity to redirect or prioritise many aspects of their expenditure, and there is the opportunity for innovation and, in particular, for Departments to become proactive rather than reactive with their budgets. Value for money is essential in order to promote optimum return from the limited resources available, which will involve allocating funds to particular areas of need and social deprivation.
The Assembly is at a crossroads, and we must address the years of underfunding of direct rule. We must set realistic targets to redress the balance and to target social need.
The additional moneys available through the Budget to schools will, I hope, ensure that the Minister of Education can prioritise the issue of mobile classrooms, and in particular the conditions in which many of our children are being taught. In addition, there is the possibility that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will ring-fence money, particularly for mental health.
Those issues, along with many more, will be a testament to our intention, as a new Government, to begin the process of change. Part of the uniqueness of the devolved Government is interdepartmental working. A good example of that is the promotion of interdepartmental co-ordination to deal with the issues affecting people with disabilities. That is one of the most positive measures to build a stronger, more concerted way to alleviate current difficulties, and to promote social inclusion for one of the most disadvantaged sections of our population.
Our aim should be to provide better access to services and facilities for the disabled, thus bringing them into line with the rest of society. With this combined effort across Departments, there will also be improved access to cultural and leisure facilities for people with disabilities. That will promote access to both social and work activities, which can only be seen as a very positive move towards inclusion for the future.
The targets defined in the Programme for Government must be regularly reviewed and examined to enable us to turn them into realistically achievable objectives. We cannot do that without adequate funding in the first place. The new facility to borrow on account will enable the Departments to ensure continuity in the provision and delivery of services. I support the motion.

Mr Paul Berry: In this Bill, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, once again, is apparently in a very generous mood. Unfortunately, he does not seem to know to whom he should be most generous. I am sure that that is part of his main problem, which raises a fundamental point: upon what basis is the Minister making his decisions? How will we know whether he has all the information that he requires in order to make those decisions? What criteria will he use for deciding the rules for disbursement? Such fundamental issues will form the basis upon which he can show his generosity. I hope that he will clear those issues up.
There is anger about the above-inflation increase to the regional rate. If more money has been found, we should go back to the drawing board on that wild and ludicrous rise. There will be an outcry throughout the country when the rates bills start coming in. I will tell my constituents that the Executive are to blame.
This is not the first time that we have heard the announcement of further moneys. The Department seems to be unsure about how much money there is in the kitty at any given time, so we get frequent piecemeal announcements. The Northern Ireland Audit Office should go over the finances and tell us exactly what is available. There is a general impression that not only is there a lot of money, but there would be even more were the Minister to look in the right places. If that is the case, I have no doubt that the Minister of Finance and Personnel will be out on the highways and byways searching for the money.
We do not want a repeat of the fiasco of the trust deficits. Some trusts, such as the Royal Victoria Hospital, have a culture of overspending. The Minister should take a close look at that. There is a perception in the community and in the Health Service that some trusts just spend and spend and that no one monitors the situation. That is a sad reflection on the Health Service. Health professionals tell me that they feel that there is a mentality that the only thing that matters is the survival of the Royal Victoria Hospital, even if that would mean the closure of the entire Health Service.
The Republic of Ireland’s financial scandals, which have led to the setting up of numerous tribunals, may pale into insignificance in comparison to the evident wanton disregard of this Executive. It is essential, therefore, that the Minister knows what is happening. Has he approached the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister about a reduction in the number of quangos? Huge savings could be legitimately made if that were done, but the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have said nothing on that matter. What is the Minister’s policy to reduce bureaucracy in order to make savings and, thus, reduce the need to raise the regional rate?
There is anger in the community about the lack of funding for the Health Service. The Minister made a welcome statement last week about tackling the trust deficits. However, more needs to be done, and more money must be invested in the Health Service, so that everyone in Northern Ireland and the Health Service can deal with the community’s problems.

Mr Sean Neeson: One of the most important effects of devolution is that we have inherited the problem of the gross underfunding of public utilities over the past 20 years. It is not just health and education; the whole infrastructure has been affected. I hope that the Assembly will address these issues, not only this year but also in years to come.
The importance of devolution is that it essentially creates greater accountability. We have not totally fulfilled our role of providing accountable government at this stage. I say so for several reasons, one being that we are a fledgling Assembly. If we are to fulfil our role of providing accountable government, the scrutiny role, of Committees in particular, must be greatly increased. The Assembly and devolution provide the opportunity to bring about change and to deal with the issues affecting the people of Northern Ireland. I will mention a few of those for the benefit of the Minister.
First, there is the question of the natural gas pipeline to the north-west. I still think that there is not enough clarity about the Executive’s role in that project — whether they are being aggressive enough in providing a level playing field for all the people of Northern Ireland. When I talk about the pipeline I include the west of the Province, Craigavon, Newry, and so forth. It is important for us to be strategic in planning our infrastructure for the future.
I hope that the Budget takes into account the creation of the single development agency for industrial development in Northern Ireland. This is a very radical move forward and I hope that the necessary funds will be made available for it. As regards infrastructure, the Assembly has inherited a railway network that is more or less clapped out and on its knees. Sufficient funds must be made available in the coming year to bring about the radical changes required to improve the rail network. That should include the retention of the line between Lisburn and Antrim.
Members will be aware that I am still deeply concerned about the future of the port of Belfast. Delays on reaching a decision on its future are creating problems for port users and for Northern Ireland’s transport infrastructure. That is because the port plays such a key role in providing access to the Province.
Many people have expressed concern about the delays and lack of clarity about the future of Peace II funding — especially those in the voluntary sector. I want some clarification about what is happening. Many voluntary organisations do not know whether they will survive into next week, never mind next month. The Executive has a role to respond to such serious concerns.
One principle that I would like to have seen encapsulated in the Programme for Government is that of sharing. If we are to move forward in Northern Ireland, we must do so through the creation of a more integrated society. It is not just a question of integrated education. We have to address the principle of sharing housing, the workplace and many other areas.
In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the Barnett formula. We all want to see that issue addressed. Nevertheless, I suggest to the Minister that similar concerns are felt by Members of the Scottish Parliament and of the National Assembly for Wales, so it would be helpful if the three devolved bodies got together on that important matter.
Dr Birnie mentioned public service agreements (PSAs). They will provide major opportunities for developing innovative improvements to life in Northern Ireland. However, this year, very little time was given to various Committees to address the whole question of PSAs. I was particularly concerned about the fact that, in relation to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, so much more money is to be spent on the electricity interconnector.
In an area where a great deal of money has already been spent — and the scheme is fairly well advanced — surely this money could have been directed to other energy schemes that would provide greater benefit to people in Northern Ireland.
I believe that the Assembly is working. People on the streets are beginning to see change. Reference was made to the introduction of free transport for the elderly. However, many more issues need to be addressed. Only by operating a system of accountable government and allowing the Committees to have a greater scrutiny role will we be able to provide the accountability that my party and the people of Northern Ireland want.

Sir John Gorman: I call the Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Mr Leslie.

Mr James Leslie: Mr Deputy Speaker, you kindly called me as the Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee. I should point out that my remarks on these issues will be made in my personal capacity.
If Mr Neeson had been here yesterday, he would have heard some remarks about the Barnett formula, which were quite pertinent to what he has just said. If he were to go to Scotland he might be surprised to find that there is exceedingly little enthusiasm for revisiting the Barnett formula, because the Scots do rather well out of it. If you were to try to renegotiate the Barnett formula, you would find Northern Ireland saying "The Scots should have less, so that we can have more."
Given the current construction of the Government, I am not sure how well that argument would wash. Those are matters that no doubt the Minister will have to wrestle with again in the future. Enough was said on that subject yesterday, especially by me.
In his remarks about the Health Service, Mr Berry referred to his concern that the money was probably not being spent as well as it might be. I dare say that that may be the case. However, I thought it conspicuous that the Member did not refer to the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office Report, which identified the very considerable shortcomings in the administration of social security payments by the Department for Social Development. Indeed, as regards the quantum of sums over which the Northern Ireland Audit Office expressed concerns, the greatest related to methods in the Department for Social Development.
I dare say that the reason Mr Berry did not see fit to mention this is that, of course, that Department is run by a Minister from his own party. Perhaps he should urge his Colleagues to put their own house in order while he is urging others to do the same.
Another matter in relation to the Department for Social Development concerns me, and I trust that the move to resource accounting will highlight the issue. I refer to housing debt — a matter that is dear to your heart, Mr Deputy Speaker.
At each monitoring round so far, it has been stated that a considerable proportion of the proceeds — about one third, at the last monitoring round — has come from sales of Housing Executive stock. We then gleefully spend that money. However, the House should be aware that that is living off capital and that, meanwhile, the Housing Executive bears debt incurred from the cost of those houses and has to service the interest.
Resource accounting will provide a proper picture of assets and liabilities, and I trust that it will become very clear that this is a deteriorating situation. I hope that the Minister of Finance is concerned about the matter and that he will be discussing how it should be addressed with the Minister for Social Development. Some way must be found to reduce the debt; otherwise the more houses that are sold, the less rental income the Housing Executive will have with which to service the debt. That is becoming a serious problem, and it will get more serious as more houses are sold. The Assembly must be made aware that while it is busily spending this capital an increasingly underfunded liability is building up.
The rates issues go round and round, and as my Colleague Dr Birnie said, several parties are trying to be disingenuous about it in order to score political points as an election approaches. It is simply not possible to demand more money and then deny the source for raising that money. The pool of money available for public expenditure in Northern Ireland is set by the Barnett formula essentially and is a grant of money from the Parliament at Westminster.
We must be conscious at all times that unoffical estimates — there are no official estimates — imply that Northern Ireland’s tax base would probably contribute roughly half of total public expenditure in the Province. Therefore the other half is contributed by taxpayers in the rest of the United Kingdom, and when one examines that figure, one realises that it is being contributed by English taxpayers. They are also funding Scotland and Wales, though not to the same extent as Northern Ireland. We must be conscious that we are living off other people’s generosity. We should therefore temper our demands in this respect, lest the whole issue be investigated in detail. That may put Northern Ireland in a somewhat disadvantagous position.
I have said in the House on many occasions — and I will continue to do so — that I am no fan of taxation. Rates are a form of taxation. The best way to stimulate an economy is to try to reduce all types of taxation and allow money to be spent as people, rather than the Government, choose. That may not work to people’s benefit as much as the Government might like to think.
In reality, if we are going to continue demanding more money — be it for public transport or the Health Service — it has to come from somewhere. Apart from the grant from Westminster, the only other source is rates. I would be reluctant to increase rates by anything other than a very modest rate, and we must be highly cognizant at all times of the value of services we get for that money. I simply do not think it realistic to demand money without explaining where it will come from.
You will get more money if you have less government, for every aspect of government costs money. If one has less government, there will be more money or less tax — one can take one’s pick. In particular, I remind the Minister that the Committee has mentioned to him from time to time the need for a review of the cost of governance. I regard that as an increasingly pressing matter.
Members will be conscious that a review of public administration, including quangos, trusts and boards, and the structure of councils is expected reasonably soon. An essential objective of the review should be that the resulting administration should cost significantly less than it does at present.
That seems to me to be the best approach we can take towards making more money available for other aspects of public expenditure, given that there will always be demands vastly in excess of what is available.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat. I did not intend to speak this morning, as a great deal was said about this yesterday. I certainly do not want to repeat yesterday’s comments. However, MrLeslie has referred to them.
My party is very conscious of the need for the question of finance raising to be discussed. We know and accept entirely that one cannot continually make demands without making the provision to satisfy those demands. We are acutely aware of that, which is why I stated yesterday that there is a need not only for a review of the rates — which has already been mentioned several times — but also for an overview of finance raising by the Executive and the Assembly as a whole. That deals with Barnett, tax variations, and so on.
I am concerned about some of the remarks made by Mr Paul Berry of the DUP in regard to health trust deficit; there was a mixed message from Mr Berry, and Hansard should show that. He made offensive remarks about some of the health trusts when he talked about their deficits and about the review that was mentioned last week by the Minister, Mark Durkan. Concerning the health trust deficit, he said that the trusts have an awful habit of overspending. In fact, he said that they have "a culture of overspending" and specifically mentioned the Royal Victoria Hospital.
His comments were quite disgraceful, given the record of questions and motions tabled by DUP Members, particularly in regard to health matters. If one added up the bill for all the demands that they have made, one would find that it would amount to a considerable sum of money. That is fair enough — we support many of those demands.
Because the matter was raised in the way that it was by the DUP, I want the Minister, in his closing remarks, to acknowledge that the matter of health trust deficits is not simply one of mismanagement or overspending by the trusts, but that there is a very clear shortfall in the budgets of most of those trusts. The health needs of the people whom those trusts serve must also be dealt with and calculated.

Mrs Iris Robinson: I welcome the opportunity to hear what the Minister of Finance and Personnel had to tell us about his spending arrangements. We must consider the amount of waste that has been exposed by the Northern Ireland Audit Office. For example, in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety payments of £17 million were made without any clear evidence to support them. On the subject of health, can the Minister advise us whether any of the extra moneys allocated to health will be used towards paying for the Minister’s legal advice in respect of her decision to close the Jubilee Hospital?
I am concerned about the surpluses in many Departments; they do not seem to have any impact on future estimations. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that issue in his summing up.
I am also concerned at the absence of any reference by the Minister to the vast amount of fraud that is costing all Departments millions of pounds. What pressure is he bringing to bear on Departments concerning fraud? In the Health Department, for example, £14million is lost through prescription fraud alone.
That brings me to the recent issue of organ retention. Will the Minister be giving money to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in order to give assistance to families who have to bear the extra cost of reopening graves? One elderly person who rang me had received a grant of £800 to help bury her late husband, who died some six months ago. The grant fell short by approximately £500, and she is still trying to pay this off. She now has to reopen the grave — at a cost of £250 — after her late husband’s organs were returned. If there is money available, the Government should provide some to help to rectify this tragedy.
The Departments made a catalogue of errors. The Northern Ireland Appropriation Accounts for 1999-2000 list areas in which error after error was made. Will the Minister tell us what he intends to do about that? Will he consider that the sums involved may equal or exceed the amount that he is dealing with today?
There is money in the system, and that makes the above-inflation rate hike unnecessary. Will the Minister look again at the money available and consider whether the rate increase can be reduced further? When householders receive their rates bill for the next financial year they will realise the vast bureaucracy and costs that have come from the Belfast Agreement.
The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is receiving another huge increase of £193,000 for setting up an office in Brussels. Can the Minister of Finance tell us what he will do to reduce such bureaucracy?
Given that extra money exists, it is imperative that it is distributed fairly. In the education sector, for example, there is a huge gap between the underfunding of capital projects in the controlled schools sector and the lavish amounts spent on the maintained and integrated schools sector. Old school buildings must be improved. There are schools in the Strangford constituency that are over 100 years old and unfit for educational purposes. Any extra money should be targeted at those schools.
Money must also be given to small rural schools. After much lobbying, the primary school in Derryboy in the Strangford constituency is being extended. However, that school will require ongoing resources to maintain its standards. Will the Minister target money towards small rural schools?
The biggest problem facing schools such as Derryboy Primary School is the transfer of pupils to the nearest high school, which, in this case, is Saintfield High School. Derryboy is a feeder school for Saintfield High School, which is unable to take all the pupils. Extra money should be spent in Killyleagh, where a new school could be built to deal with the rise in population and future developments in Strangford.
I welcome the mention of winter fuel payments. That issue has been debated in the Assembly and Members have raised it with Ministers.
I am concerned about job losses in the textile sector. Will the Minister tell the House what moneys can be identified in his Estimates that will go directly towards combating the depressed state of the textile industry? If there is no such money, why is that so, and will he do something about it?
What extra money is available to resolve the debate about maternity services? Will there be extra funding to provide for the new build at the appropriate locations? The historic underfunding of the Ulster Hospital is another matter of concern. For a decade, the hospital has been by-passed in capital expenditure rise. However, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is aware of the needs of the hospital. Will the Minister take that issue on board?
The list of issues that must be tackled is huge and I am concerned that Members did not have enough time to examine the issues in greater detail. Will the Minister tell Members that more time will be given for their thorough analysis of his proposals the next time that he announces his Budget Estimates?

Ms Jane Morrice: I commend this historic Budget. It is appropriate that the Assembly is moving into the era of setting its own Budget. Mr Maskey, Mrs I Robinson and others raised the issue of financial control. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, so I am aware of the huge discrepancies outlined in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report.
The Assembly needs to know how much control the Minister will have to ensure that such a report never appears again. Will this new type of resource budgeting lead to better financial controls and ensure better handling of public money all round?
Another point, raised in part by MrsI Robinson, concerned not just time for Members to review the Budget, but also a clearer understanding of the procedure and the process. There is no breakdown of where the money is going. We have no idea how much funding will be provided next year for the children’s fund, women’s issues and road safety. It is vital that we see the breakdown. Can we learn any lessons, and in the next budgetary round lay out details and put Estimates down hand-in-hand with the Budget Bill?
Much adding and subtracting is required to work out how much we receive in one financial year compared to the previous year. What are the increases and the decreases? What are the percentages? We need to have easy access to those figures so that we can make comparisons and decide whether to support the movement forward. MrsI Robinson referred to the textiles industry, which is another important matter. We need to know what is being done there, and we need to have a breakdown of exactly where the money is going.
I disagree with MrsI Robinson’s point about the lavish amounts being spent on integrated education. I totally denounce that. Integrated education has been around only for the past 20years, since 1981, and the other sectors have been receiving money for a lot longer. It is about integrated education catching up.
We are only at the draft Programme for Government stage. How flexible will the Budget be to accommodate changing priorities as a result of the approval of the Programme for Government? Are we being given a fait accompli, or can the money be moved? There are many other ongoing negotiations with regard to the Programme for Government.
I have two final points. First, there is the problem of European funding and funding of the gap between PeaceI and PeaceII. I commend the Minister on his efforts to provide gap funding for projects that otherwise would have had to close as a result of the lack of European funding. Gap funding is needed for projects for women returners, projects for the long-term unemployed, projects for cross-border issues and projects that have no finance other than European money. Funding is needed to sustain them until the new round of European funds is available.
Furthermore, serious consideration should be given to mainstreaming these projects. We cannot rely on European money for the rest of our time, and we are all aware that it is running out. The Government and the Executive need to recognise the value of these projects, such as cross-border, cross-community peace and reconciliation projects, which are very important to the future of Northern Ireland. They should be funded not just from European funds, but from Executive funds. Mainstreaming is vital.
I have had calls from people in voluntary and environmental organisations, saying that they can see the money in the Executive Programme funds and want to know how to get their hands on it. Transparency and openness are vital. I want to know what the Minister will do about that. How does a group access those funds?

Mr Nigel Dodds: There is a need for more clarity and explanation about how the Executive Programme funds will be managed and used. Ms Morrice asked how groups can access them. They will not get access. I understand that it is Departments that will get access, by making bids. Therein lies a whole series of other questions such as how those bids will be prioritised and how Departments should manage the submission of such bids. Will they be asked to come forward with new ideas following the drawing-up of their own priorities? Can they put forward bids on issues that are already part of their own spending priorities? We need more explanation about how those funds will be managed.
One of the concerns raised is that, to some extent, a reserve of money has been held back by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, in particular. No doubt, as has happened with other announcements, the Finance Minister will be given the plum job of coming to the Assembly to make an announcement, whereas the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will have already announced it at a press conference in the Long Gallery.
There is an issue when the Executive, or the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in particular, make announcements during the course of the year on public spending priorities. I hope that when there is bad news to announce, the Finance Minister will ensure that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will rush forward with the same alacrity into the Long Gallery on a Thursday evening to make announcements. They seem pretty selective in the announcements that they make.
The scrutiny of the Budget has clearly been unsatisfactory up to now. Reasons have been given, such as the time constraints we have been under. The Minister gave commitments yesterday and on previous occasions that the cycle will be revised to ensure that the Budget is introduced as early as possible after the summer recess. I welcome that. It is vital to have as much debate and scrutiny of these Budgets as possible.
The Minister also made the important point, which we should all take note of, that we do not need to wait for the start of any particular procedure in order to begin this process. This is something that we can pursue actively, at all times, in our Committees and elsewhere. That is an issue that we need to look at very closely.
I also want to discuss the regional rate increase. I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised to hear me raise it. At the time, I welcomed the fact that the increase in the business rate for next year would be reduced from more than double the rate of inflation to about the rate of inflation. However, the Minister reduced the increase in the regional rate for domestic householders by only 1% — from 8% to 7%. That is a great failing on his part, and on the part of the Executive.
In a valiant effort, Dr Birnie — who has left the Chamber — defended that decision by saying that it was hard to argue against it; it is not hard to argue against it at all. We are being asked to accept a rise in the regional rate for domestic householders that is double the rate of inflation. Those people have already faced such an increase in the past two years. What is the Minister’s plan for the next two years? Originally, he planned another 8% increase over the next two years, so I would be grateful to know whether he has revised that plan in light of the representations made to him on the issue, not just in the House but outside it as well.
Mr Leslie argued that if we wanted to spend more money, we would have to explain where we would get it from. He was quite right; that is exactly why, in tabling an amendment to reduce the increase in the regional rate from 8%, as it then was — it is now 7% — to the rate of inflation, we suggested areas in which expenditure should be cut. I remind Mr Leslie and other Members what those areas were: the North/South Ministerial Council and the implementation bodies. That would fit in well with Mr Leslie’s other comment that we would get value for money by having less government. Well, that is one suggestion for him.
Rather than trotting out clichés about seeing where the money will come from before making bids, my party outlined where the cuts should be and suggested that the Budget should be amended accordingly. Unfortunately, Mr Leslie and his Colleagues voted against it, preferring to have more, rather than less, government and bureaucracy, and all for political reasons. I remind Mr Leslie and his Colleagues and Members from other parties who talk about expenditure on administration that it was they who voted to have 10 Departments. Many of us argued that that number of Departments was unnecessary and would simply increase the cost; the Minister gave a figure of £26 million a year to the Finance and Personnel Committee. That is food for thought for Members.
Mr Leslie referred to Mr Berry’s speech, which criticised some aspects of health expenditure. He asked why Mr Berry had not raised the question of expenditure caused by social security errors. That issue is being addressed by the Department for Social Development, whose plans received general endorsement from the House. No one will make any excuses for errors or fraud; those problems must be dealt with. However, many who are entitled to benefits under the present system do not claim their full entitlement; that is sometimes forgotten. Tens of millions of pounds are left unclaimed every year by those who are entitled to benefit.

Mr Robert McCartney: Is the Member aware that claims for disability allowance in west Belfast amount to about three times the total for such claims in North Down? Disability allowance does not relate to economic circumstances.
12.00

Mr Nigel Dodds: That is a good point and one that needs to be put on the record.
Some people in west Belfast may have been misled by the poor example shown by the Sinn Féin Member for that area as regards the charge of the abuse of benefits that is directed at people with genuine disabilities. Should there be any doubt as to which Sinn Féin Member I am referring to, it is Mr Maskey.
As regards social security, the rules for entitlement, and the difficulties in procedures for social security claimants are set down in Westminster, not in this Assembly. The problems and difficulties that occur here also occur across the water. This issue must be addressed in consultation with Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Mr Leslie — and this is not a "bash Mr Leslie" day, although he did take a potshot at us — did not mention the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report regarding the revelations surrounding the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB). The report identified great weaknesses in financial procedures. I throw the same question to him: perhaps he did not mention it because a Member of his party is the Minister responsible for the NITB.
In conclusion, I mention the vexed question of capital receipts and house sales — an issue that has come before the House before. Mr Leslie raised the matter, and I commend him for that. There is a danger in living off capital receipts. Furthermore, there is a strong argument that if so much money is being taken out of the housing sector in Northern Ireland, then a greater proportion of that money needs to go back into the sector to address the great social need that is there. In common with other Members, I urge the Minister to look carefully at that. I understand that there are constraints in terms of Treasury rules; however, as regards the Minister’s monitoring rounds, I urge him to take account of the pleas of many in the House.

Sir John Gorman: You will not be surprised that I listened to that last point with some pleasure.

Mr Robert McCartney: Although many points have been competently and articulately dealt with by other Members, I must address the relationship between the finances of Northern Ireland — as administered by the Assembly — and those of the United Kingdom.
The Minister of Finance in Northern Ireland has the unenviable job of allotting portions of the cake to particular sectors; however, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who determines the size of the cake. What steps has the Minister taken, or will take, in relation to the finances of Northern Ireland that will address the peculiar problems arising from steps taken on reserved fiscal matters, which have a dire and particularly acute effect on the Northern Ireland economy?
Will the Minister also state what steps he has taken, or will take, to address the effects for Northern Ireland of being the only part of the United Kingdom sharing a land border with a foreign country?
The Minister will be aware that the agriculture industry has suffered enormous hardship as a result of the incompetence of central Government, particularly in relation to BSE. This has resulted in Northern Ireland beef producers being lumped in with the rest of the United Kingdom as regards the re-entry of beef exports into Europe. This is despite having the best record and the best system in the EU for tracing and detection, and a far lower incidence of BSE than in any other part of the United Kingdom.
That was despite the fact that the proportion of beef cattle produced in Northern Ireland that went for export to Europe was far, far greater than that from any other part of the United Kingdom. As a result, Northern Ireland suffered disproportionately.
I want to hear the Minister’s comments on fuel — motor spirit and other fuels. He will be aware that since 1995, the level of motor fuel lawfully imported into Northern Ireland has dropped by perhaps 50%, at a time when the number of lawfully registered vehicles here has increased by 125,000. Everyone knows that perhaps one third of all motor fuel used in Northern Ireland is the product of smuggling and that the Treasury is losing not tens of millions, but hundreds of millions a year.
However, let us set aside for the moment what the Treasury is losing and look at the effect that this smuggling — which is effectively controlled by paramilitaries, represented by parties in this Assembly — is having on lawful traders in Northern Ireland. Petrol retailers are closing because they cannot compete with those selling smuggled fuel. Hauliers are going out of business because while central Government are increasing the duty on motor fuel, the Government of the Republic of Ireland — starting off from a lower charge for fuel — are reducing it. I appreciate that the Minister has no direct control over this, but these matters are seriously influencing the economic well-being of Northern Ireland. It will be interesting to hear what steps the Minister, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have taken to ensure special arrangements for Northern Ireland, since we are in a special position. We have a land border with another country, whose economic position enables it — largely through the payment of British funds into the EU, which are then used to subsidise the Republic — to have lower fuel prices that are used in turn to destroy some of our industries to the benefit of the Republic and to the detriment of the British Exchequer. Some of those issues need to be looked at.

Mr Seamus Close: I thank the Member for drawing the Minister’s attention to that list. Would he add to it the tax on aggregates? That is another issue affecting the Northern Ireland economy.

Mr Robert McCartney: I would indeed, and I am grateful to the Member for raising that point. That is another tax that will have a discriminatory effect on those businesses in Northern Ireland that are utilising aggregates and other substances heavily used in the construction industry.
Another is the climate control levy, which will be levied in Northern Ireland and will have a very severe effect on our industry and industrialists. Already we have the highest electricity costs in the United Kingdom. Why? It is not, I am glad to say, because of anything done by this Assembly; it is due to the incompetence of central Government when they negotiated electricity generation costs some years ago.
That burdened Northern Ireland Electricity with contracts that are uneconomic and over-generous, and that apparently cannot be changed. It also means that the Northern Ireland business user pays way over the odds for his electricity, as does the domestic user. With regard to business energy costs, there is no suggestion that special arrangements will be made for the climate change levy for Northern Ireland to take into account the excessive costs for energy.
I appreciate that many of these matters are outside the control of the Assembly, the Executive and the relevant Minister. What we want from the Minister is a statement regarding the representations that he and his Colleagues will make to central Government to specifically look at problems arising from our geographical position. Those problems require not special treatment in the sense that we are preferred above other parts of the United Kingdom, but special treatment in the sense that our peculiar difficulties arising from our geographical position are catered for.
I want to focus on several issues. The Assembly has been granted one tax-raising power — that of increasing rates. When anyone is given a power there is an overwhelming inducement to exercise it, whether it is justified or not. Having been given a power to raise money through increasing the domestic and the regional rate, the Executive could not resist using that power even though the revenue it would produce would be minuscule compared to the harm it would do.
At an earlier sitting, I asked the Minister whether he was aware that many in the community were astonished to find that he was able to unearth millions of pounds worth of finance by hoking down the side of the sofa or rummaging behind the piano, as I put it rather graphically and colourfully. Curiously enough, none of this newly found, some might say ill-gotten, gain was used to reduce rates, except business rates. I approached the Minister privately and was glad to note — and I give him full credit — that he came before the Assembly and announced a reduction in the proposed increase in the business rate.
Small businesses provide the backbone of our commercial life. None of them is making vast sums. Many of them continue as small businesses only out of a desire to be independent and to work for themselves. They pay their rates and taxes; they educate their children; they do not draw unemployment or other state benefits. They are the backbone of this community.
One of my constituents in Holywood, a single parent running a small business, found that her rates had increased over the past four years, due to revaluation and rate increases, from £70 to £242 per month. The result was that, if the proposed business rate increase had been put through, she was simply going to close her business.
It seems illogical for the Executive to be handing out millions upon millions to the IDB for the purchase of new jobs, sometimes at up to £40,000 per job. Very often the people who are coming in here, attracted by the huge grants and subsidies, are on the fly. Once they have exhausted the possibilities of making an easy buck and the going gets tough, they leave. Everyone in this community — Unionist and Nationalist — suffers. This money is being paid out to attract new jobs, while rate increases are effectively destroying the livelihood and jobs of those who have continued to support the community and be of benefit to it, rather than a drag upon it.
Increasing the business rate at all — even though it is now to be increased only in proportion to inflation — is a regressive step. The word in the financial world is that one of the steps that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take when he distributes all the largesse before the next election is an inducement to the business community in the United Kingdom. He plans to reduce the business rate. We have a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the United Kingdom reducing the business rate in an economy that is extremely buoyant. We have the Minister in this sensitive, accountable Northern Ireland Executive proposing to increase the business rate for businesses that are under the cosh. If that is an example of the Assembly’s bringing sensitivity, accountability and accessibility to the electorate of Northern Ireland, then the Minister should take up a job as a pantomime dame. That is what ordinary people will be saying. Why are we doing this? It defies common sense.
Finally, I want to make one or two points about —

Sir John Gorman: Three Members want to speak before the winding-up speech, so please be brief.

Mr Robert McCartney: I will be very brief. I am grateful for the indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I want simply to echo the remarks of Mrs I Robinson about the funding of the Ulster Hospital. The Ulster Hospital has been grossly underfunded for many years. Since it absorbed the Newtownards Hospital, the position has become acute. In some departments, such as the orthopaedic department, it has had to stop elective surgery entirely because it can cope with emergencies and casualties only. That situation should not be permitted to continue.

Sir John Gorman: Members have heard my remarks about timing. I would be very grateful, therefore, if Mr Gibson, Mr Shannon and Mr O’Connor could keep their remarks to the main issues so that the Minister can respond.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I return to the point made by Mr Paul Berry — that we very much want to see the Ulster hallmark on the Minister’s Budget. What criteria is he using to set the direction for Northern Ireland regional Government? The Budget, which I am sure is a splendid account of the figures and the anticipated projections, is in truth a very conservative Budget. It probably follows in the steps of Westminster. In light of the arguments that have been made — and they have been reiterated again this morning — there are clear differences because of our unique position. I do not want to have to highlight those again, except to mention one particular field.
Figures show that hospitals in Northern Ireland are greatly underfunded in comparison with those in Scotland — apparently, there is a funding difference of approximately 14%. Will the Minister find out whether figures that show that Scottish hospitals receive 20% more funding than those in England and Wales, while Northern Ireland receives just 4% to 6% more, are correct? Will he explore this matter with his counterparts in Westminster?
Yesterday, I raised a point of order with regard to rates, and I was severely admonished by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will return to the matter today. We spend £40 million on "North/Southery", yet the infamous former Taoiseach, Mr Haughey, removed rates from the agenda. What secret did Mr Haughey hold, and why should we spend £40 million to find out?
The forthcoming review of local government will allow us to examine the different areas of administration. I detect a feeling among Members that we are still living with a hangover from direct rule. At times, I detect a reluctance on the part of Members to impart necessary information. Transparency has been requested, and we need information so that we can make informed judgements.
Four years ago, I discovered that when the Western Education and Library Board and the other boards came under pressure to make cuts, they were suddenly able to make savings and streamline their administration. They were also able to make league tables for specific areas. What is being done to hone our present administration and to make it accountable? DrBirnie and Mr Leslie meandered along various avenues to seek solutions to the problem, but they concluded that less government is needed and mentioned the need for accountability and responsibility. Those are important requirements, but the Minster of Finance and Personnel needs to focus on the areas which are under the most severe pressure.
The entire rural community has been devastated by the plague of BSE. At the moment, there appears to be a lack of vision and strategy on the part of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. It is reactive rather than giving the rural community a way forward. This is the largest sector of the community; it needs serious attention and it demands help. The people there do not want to live off handouts, and they do not want to harvest grants alone. Farmers want to be restored to their rightful status as part of the primary industry of this Province. I appeal to the Minister of Finance and Personnel to take that on board.
Finally, rurality have been equated with deprivation. Yesterday afternoon we expressed the need to play catch-up in rural areas. In his Budget, Mr Durkan has the opportunity to make sure that we have equality, and that means providing capital funding for rural schools and funding an acute services hospital in the south-west of the Province. Those are basic provisions, but they are essential to enhance the meaning of the term "rurality" so that it is no longer associated with remoteness and deprivation.
The new Executive have an opportunity to stamp the hallmark for an Ulster way forward. At the moment, I fear it is lacking, but I anticipate that the Minister will do an honourable job in his excellent office.

Sir John Gorman: I must ask Members please to keep their remarks to about five minutes. Otherwise we will not be able to keep within our timescale, and we will have very little chance to hear the Minister.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I support the Minister of Finance and Personnel. As you yourself would probably guess, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is extremely important to me that I touch on issues pertaining to the Department for Social Development. We see a lot of money being spent on administration in that Department, and the reason is that the benefit system is far, far too complex. There are grave errors in the benefit and child support system and in the Social Security Agency.
The Minister has already introduced the Child Support Bill, which we very much welcome. However, we want to see the whole system of administering benefits streamlined to make it much easier. Mr McCartney talked about people working to stay off benefit, but many people do not really have any choice. Their circumstances mean that they have to claim benefits such as disability living allowance (DLA). DLA should be the easiest benefit to claim; in fact, its administration makes application most difficult.
With regard to incapacity benefit, people who are cut off and decide to appeal are relegated to income support, 25% of which is taken away from them. These people who are living on the breadline are therefore further penalised by anomalies in the benefits system. It takes away their right to appeal because they cannot afford to live on so little money.
Many Members have touched on individual needs in their constituencies, which would best be served by the relevant Minister. It is not for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to decide how every single pound should be spent in Northern Ireland. If it were, there would be no need for any other Ministers.
In welcoming the Budget Bill, I want to draw attention to the capital receipts on housing which Mr Leslie touched on earlier. That stock is dwindling. We cannot continue to go to the well for water, because sooner or later there will be no water in the well. What will we do then? Some of our best public sector housing has been sold on. We are now talking about going into private finance initiatives to build public-sector housing. I am not a businessman, but private finance means that somebody has to get a cut. There must be profits for shareholders somewhere down the line, and those will be at the public expense. I do not believe that that is the way forward.
I very much welcomed the statement from the Minister of Finance and Personnel in the House last Monday when greater powers for the Comptroller and Auditor General were approved by the House. The powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General should enable him to play a vital role in properly reviewing public administration and how our money is spent.
I also want to touch on the points made by Mr McCartney about the damage done to our economy by climate tax, aggregate tax, smuggling and counterfeiting. We also have corporation tax, which makes it difficult to compete on a level playing field. What Mr McCartney has just done is show how much better off we would all be in an Irish Republic.

Sir John Gorman: Thank you, Mr O’Connor. Your last few words raised the temperature somewhat.
I call Mr Shannon and ask him to be as brief as possible.

Mr Jim Shannon: The first issue I want to address is roads. The Minister of Finance and Personnel will say that he has no responsibility for roads; that that is the responsibility of the Minister for Regional Development. However, if sufficient funds were made available to that Minister, he could make use of them.
The Comber bypass has been a point of discussion for 30 years. Both local councils have seen the bypass as their number one priority. We have had various assurances from Government Ministers; Ministers who flew in on a Monday morning, flew out on a Friday and told us that the Comber bypass was one of their priorities. Still we have no bypass, and that is having a detrimental effect on Comber. Many factories and shops have shut down. The town is stagnating and local retail trade has decreased by almost 50%. The Department has not addressed this issue, and I am making a plea for an urgent allocation of money for the construction of the Comber bypass.
The bypass was originally planned for 2001; it has now been postponed until 2003-04. The problem of traffic and congestion was recognised some 30 years ago, but the problem has still to be addressed. We can do something if sufficient funds are set aside. The need for the bypass has been well documented locally and in the Department for Regional Development.
Secondly, I want to address the lack of health and social services funding, especially for special schools. Speech and language therapy and occupational therapy have been reduced in special schools. The Department of Health says that it is not its responsibility, as does the Department of Education. The two Departments are playing ball with children’s special needs. That has been a matter of concern in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board area, where severe underfunding has made it necessary to cut back on therapy sessions for children. Funding is needed for resources and staffing. The staff provide a special service, but they are trying to balance resources with needs and responsibilities. Schools must meet the complex needs of each child. Each child’s circumstances are unique and need special care. It is important that funding is set aside for that.
In my constituency of Strangford, discussions with the Eastern Health and Social Services Board about resources for therapy have not come to a fruitful conclusion. The board says that the finances are not available. If the Minister can make the finances available to the Department of Health, I am sure that the issue could be addressed directly.
Some 50 children in my area are waiting for special needs care. Children with learning difficulties and physical disabilities also require those benefits. I am concerned that the issue has not been addressed.
Children suffer if finance is not made available. That falls back, and reflects badly, on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department of Education and us, as elected representatives. We urge the Minister to ensure that sufficient finance is made available to ensure that children’s occupational therapy needs and language needs are looked after.

Sir John Gorman: Thank you for being so brief, Mr Shannon.
I want to apologise for something that is entirely my fault. I was in the Chair yesterday and am in it again today. We allowed ourselves a little bit of latitude on a Supply motion yesterday, and we are doing the same with the Budget motion today. We have discussed all sorts of topics. It is not fair to the Minister to see his two objectives added together and adumbrated — several times in some cases. I apologise for not being as severe as I ought to have been yesterday, and possibly today as well.

Mr Robert McCartney: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Bearing in mind the Minister’s difficulties that you have highlighted, the House would be quite willing to give him a little time out so that he can separate his various responsibilities and bifurcate into Supply and Budget over lunch.

Sir John Gorman: We will return at twoo’clock. Minister, having dealt most effectively with Supply yesterday, can you pick a way through what is Supply and what is Budget and deal with the Budget today?

Mr Mark Durkan: Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome your observations. It saves me from making points that Members may feel are defensive, procedural pedantry. Nevertheless, the contributions, although perhaps not pertinent to the requirements of the Budget Bill, touch on the wider Budget considerations that Members feel are important to reflect upon. Given that latitude, and the spirit in which Members spoke, I will try to deal with some of the points raised, many of which were raised yesterday.
Given the underlying recurrent theme yesterday, today and on previous occasions when I have been here — and there have been quite a few — for all the lack of accountability that Members refer to, I must say that I am doing very little in relation to finance. I am doing nothing without the authority and agreement of the Executive Committee. There is little beyond that which I am not presenting in the House. I am open to questions whenever we make statements. We are bringing those various measures together. I accept that we are in the difficult situation of having to take several procedural devices close together. It is hard in those circumstances for Members to tell precisely what is what, and there is a tendency in the debates for everything to get crammed in.
Given the concern about the lack of accountability and the talk about a lack of responsiveness, I will try to respond to many of the points. Today, 13 Members contributed. There were 21 contributions yesterday. Thinking back to the debate on the Budget, the contributions were in the high twenties, as they were for the debate on the draft Budget on the motion that was tabled by the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Mr Molloy.
For all the criticism about the lack of consultation, there have been opportunities for Members to speak, without too many time constraints, on many of those issues. Many of the issues that have been raised today were also raised in previous debates. I have noted the points and have tried to respond on previous occasions, but they come back.
The issue of rates and taxation was raised earlier by Dr Birnie, and I welcome that contribution. It chimes with points that I have made. Members need to think fully about the implications and the complications of the issues that are involved here. It is not just a matter of sloganeering our way through these problems. If we are serious about addressing the issues raised by the regional rate, then we must also be serious about pursuing the Barnett formula. We need to join up our thinking on all those points.
If we are going to make a case to the Treasury about Barnett, then we need to be aware that it will be countered with other points. In that regard, I would not be at all surprised to find some of the sweeping statements about wasteful, extravagant expenditure and the supposed lack of financial control on some programmes in Northern Ireland being read back to us in discussions with the Treasury. I ask Members to think more about all these issues, rather than make the assumption that, on any given day, the Department of Finance and Personnel has three wishes that it can ask for, and automatically receive, from the Treasury. We have to make a case.
Dr Birnie and Mr Leslie, picking up on Mr Neeson’s argument, made the point that even the Barnett case is not straightforward. It is not even straightforward between the devolved territories. Therefore, we must take care to have a strong, well-developed case, and also to put it forward in a sound political context.
If we are to make the sort of cases that we have been told we need to make to the Treasury — not just on Barnett but also on UK fiscal measures, as Mr McCartney said — then let us be clear. If I were to take some of the main points raised here today and on previous occasions, I would be saying to the Treasury, "We want more money for public expenditure. We are wasting the money that we are already getting. We do not want to raise any more money from our own households through the rates. We do not want to pay UK taxes. We want special exemptions from UK taxes and we want to be exempt from raising revenue of our own as well."
We would not survive very long in that conversation with the Treasury. I ask Members to listen with care to everything that has been said in the House. We will try to reflect, as an Executive, on all the positive contributions — and many positive contributions have been made. However, let us remember that all those points and contributions need to be read and considered in balance with each other. None of them can exist alone. If that is true of the world in general, it is certainly true in Government. Everything is connected to everything else. We cannot make our case on any of these issues on a purely free-standing basis. We need to make a case on most of those issues.

Mr Robert McCartney: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the issue of rates, the amount that is being collected is minimal compared to the amounts that the Minister has found and where he could spend it. It is not an either/or situation.

Mr Mark Durkan: I will come to that point later, because issues were raised about the monitoring rounds and this notion of finding money wherever we find it.
People are rightly saying that I and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who have a particular representational role on behalf of the Executive and the broad regional interest, need to be making those cases to the UK Government and the Treasury in particular. We need to make those cases with care and consideration. We need to ensure — as I have already said — that we join up our thinking on those points.
Patricia Lewsley, Iris Robinson and others raised the question of funding for schools. To reiterate what I said yesterday, we obviously have to continue to invest in temporary school accommodation, even though the need is clearly for longer-term provision of adequate facilities. That is simply because there are longer-term issues that need to be addressed, and in the interim we need to make sure that there is, at least, acceptable accommodation. Those longer-term issues need to be addressed through the education budget.
One means of addressing some of those longer-term issues is through private finance initiatives (PFIs) and public-private partnerships. Given the limitations of our resources, we have to identify other means that can be marshalled to assist the public policy aim of having adequate schools capital facilities.
Patricia Lewsley and Paul Berry also mentioned the pursuit of value for money. The Executive are pursuing that agenda in several ways. That is also vital for this Assembly and, not least, for the Public Accounts Committee. We are developing public service agreements, and the importance of those was underlined by Esmond Birnie. We are trying to manage the transition to resource budgeting, and to ensure that we have proper appraisal procedures. We will pursue all of those rigorously. I hope that in doing so, we have the support not just of the House, but also of the respective departmental Committees. Those measures will be most telling as they apply, and are applied, at the departmental level.
That brings me to a general point about the contributions today. Some Members seem to be under a misapprehension that I, as Minister of Finance and Personnel, have a directive role in relation to every bit of public expenditure that is discharged or managed by any Department or any agency. Members need to recognise that many of the very valid and useful points that have been raised today are particularly relevant when it comes to the departmental determinations, as far as spending priorities and spending allocations are concerned in departmental budgets.
As Minister of Finance and Personnel, I am in an unusual position. People tell me that I am interfering with what Departments want to do, that I am fussing around, that I am stopping Departments doing things and not affording people the flexibility or discretion that they need. It is alleged that the dead hand of the Department of Finance and Personnel is stopping and curtailing everything. At the same time I am told that the Department of Finance and Personnel is allowing Departments to do too much according to their own devices and whims.
The reality is that we are presenting the broad Budget allocations for the different Departments and the different programmes. Decisions within those Budget lines are taken at departmental level. I hope that the departmental Committees are informing themselves of those decisions, are making their own concerns and interests felt, and advertising their own particular priorities that they want to see reflected in those allocations.
Some of the important roles of Committees have been stressed — not least the importance of scrutiny. The Committees also have policy development and priority informing roles. I do not believe that a Committee’s role should be confined to post hoc scrutiny. As Mr Dodds said, I hope that Committees will not feel constrained by the cycle of financial proceedings, and that they will still pursue those matters in their own time.

Mr John Dallat: Is the Minister suggesting that those Members who refuse to sit on Committees would serve the Assembly better if they put their name down for the Finance and Personnel Committee and contributed positively to the Assembly?

Mr Mark Durkan: I was not addressing any particular members of any particular Committees — or any Members who are not on any Committees. However, if anyone wanted to join a Committee, I could suggest some people that I would like to see replaced on certain Committees for a while to give me a break.

Mr Robert McCartney: Democracy precludes serving on Committees with trigger-men.

Sir John Gorman: Order. I cannot allow remarks made from a sedentary position.

Mr Mark Durkan: Questions have understandably been asked, notably by Mr Berry, about the criteria for the allocation of money. The process of public expenditure allocation is not one that lends itself to an easy formula for producing correct figures. Public expenditure is not managed on that basis anywhere.
We must try to balance resources against needs. We must also constantly reappraise and test the allocation of resources against perceived needs, first to check whether needs have changed and should be recognised in a different way, and secondly to see whether opportunities to meet needs have changed and can be responded to.
The change to resource accounting and budgeting should help with those matters. Spending plans should become a closer articulation of public policy priorities and public service interests than they have been in the past, because it is the focus on outcomes and outputs, not just on inputs, that helps us to make the change.
Ms Morrice said that people wanted to see a comparison between this year’s allocations and last year’s. I believe that what people and the Assembly really want to know is whether money allocated for a particular purpose is really being used to the best effect for that purpose, or whether money could be released for other needs. We need to move away from treating budgets simply in terms of the incremental changes to inputs and start to examine the real uses to which money is put.
Resource accounting and budgeting will help us to achieve value for money — a point that was made by several Members, including Ms Lewsley. That is because, with better information on the cost of services and a new focus on achieving objectives, there will be a renewed emphasis on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of government. Those "three Es" will sit strongly and positively with the "fourth E" of equality, which we have a particular duty to have regard to since the agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Mr Berry raised points about the Health Service deficits. I have to agree with Mr Maskey on this, as Mr Berry seemed to make some contradictory claims. He began by presenting a picture of wasteful expenditure — some sort of management abandon — in particular in the trusts and ended up talking about the previous chronic underfunding of the Health Service. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel are jointly consulting to look at the causes and the consequences of these trust deficits. They are serious issues and we recognise that they pose serious questions, not just about financial control but also about service delivery. Clearly there is a question about whether the trusts are underfunded, and whether that is then reflected in the deficits.
Moreover, we have to address the serious issues of financial control. If the Assembly is to set budgets — and secondary allocations are made by the Departments based on those budgets — we have to ensure that everyone managing funds does so within the lines and limits of the set authority. The change to resource accounting and budgeting makes a difference here. Up to this point the spending of the trusts has been outside the departmental expenditure limit, and the deficits did not show up in the system for that reason. Under resource accounting and budgeting that will no longer be the case. Any emerging problems should show up early on and will be dealt with on that basis. The problem of cumulative trust deficits should not recur in the same way under resource accounting and budgeting. Other issues need to be addressed, and that is why we are consulting.
I have already touched on the points raised about Barnett. The First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and I did make representations to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the last spending review. The real case that we need to make has to be in the context of the next spending review. Barnett and how UK fiscal measures affect Northern Ireland, which was raised by Mr McCartney, are matters that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister continue to make representations to the Treasury on, as do other Ministers. Sir Reg Empey, as Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have made several representations to the Treasury on the matter of fuel tax.
The same applies to the climate change levy and to the aggregates tax. I, along with officials from several relevant Departments, met representatives of the Quarry Products Association. With further information from them we have been continuing to make that case. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister raised that matter in their last meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They pointed out — and we continue to do this — that some of these measures have an adverse effect, in economic terms, on Northern Ireland, for many of the reasons that Mr McCartney gave. Some, which are meant to be environmental measures, obviously have a perverse effect on Northern Ireland. They do not achieve their environmental aims and compound our economic disadvantage in other areas.
Mr Leslie and Mr O’Connor raised an issue with regard to housing. The Department for Social Development and the Housing Executive have jointly commissioned a strategic options study, which is examining options for the future financing of social housing. My Department has been consulted and I hope that we can look forward to a presentation in due course.
I dealt with Mr Neeson’s question about the gas industry yesterday. We recognise the importance of the Port of Belfast, and the Department for Regional Development is addressing that issue. The Regional Development Committee has also been looking at the matter and has been considering options.
We have pointed out some considerations that people will need to have regard to if we are to make diligent decisions. Some are not of our making, or of our choosing. Nevertheless, they are there and, in the realistic public interest, we need to bear them in mind.
Points were made in relation to railways, and some railway lines in particular. Again, I covered most of those yesterday.
The fraud issues — including those raised concerning the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety — are taken seriously. I have underlined that before. I hope Ministers take all incidents of fraud, and all possibilities for fraud, seriously. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety takes the issue of fraud seriously — be it at the level of service users or practitioners. Measures have already been announced and undertaken in relation to several aspects of health and social services.
I have already dealt with schools.
There were some issues raised concerning gap funding. I had hoped that I had dealt with some of those yesterday. Nevertheless — in case there are any outstanding issues or concerns — I will repeat what I said. Last week, I announced that part of the December monitoring round involved setting money aside to cover Departments in starting to make allocations to groups that they believe — on the basis of a sound judgement — would be eligible for Peace II funding. The moneys being allocated to the Executive programme funds for social inclusion are there as a safety net, in the event that Departments make allocations to groups or projects that do not qualify for Peace II funding. The Departments will be covered against that, as will the peace fund. This is something more than the previous forms of gap funding. We are now starting to look at making allocations on the basis of the criteria for Peace II. There are no guarantees, and sustainability criteria were written in for all groups to have regard to at the start of Peace I. They were also underlined in an interim report in 1997. The different funding agencies and bodies have had to have regard to sustainability. It is not just a matter for the Government.
Members may want to consider that, looking at the funding for Peace II — and at the issues of sustainability, which are obviously going to arise at the end of Peace II — developing the type of arrangement we have created with the Executive Programme Funds gives us one means of trying to pick up on those issues. It also enables us to mainstream — as we have been requested to do by Ms Morrice and others. I hope therefore that people will give some long-term thought to what we are trying to achieve with the facilities provided by the Executive programme funds. Given that the significant additional money that we receive from Peace II will be lost in some years’ time — and we are aware of the important programmes that it supports —the Assembly will have to question its attitude to raising additional resources through the rates. I do not know how we are meant to meet that loss in the future if we forego the option of raising additional money through rates.
I have covered most of the new points made today. Obviously, I will endeavour to write to Members on any matters that I have not been able to cover. For instance, JimShannon made a point about roads at the end of the debate, which was covered yesterday. The spending decisions relating to many of those points cannot be determined by the Minister of Finance and Personnel — they need to be addressed and answered by the relevant Ministers.
I have had regard to the procedural issues raised. JaneMorrice wanted to know if the Estimates were going to be provided hand-in-hand with the Budget Bill. If anything, I thought that most Members were making the opposite criticism: that the Estimates and the Budget Bill are too close together. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for the confusion about which channel we are meant to be in at a particular time. In future, I hope that we can ensure that the Estimates are available a bit earlier so that Members can give them proper consideration.
However, allow me to stress that the allocation made for the deficits came out of the December monitoring round, even though it has had to be reflected in the spring Supplementary Estimates. Given that they had to be updated with such an adjustment, the spring Supplementary Estimates were turned around in very good time.
I reiterate that we will work with the Committees on improving the cycle to ensure that there is time for fuller consideration and greater contribution. Contributions do not always have to take the form of post hoc scrutiny by Committees, and that does not just apply to the Committee of Finance and Personnel; it applies to the other departmental Committees too. I hope that we can achieve better spacing between the Estimates and the Budget Bill and that that will allow for full and proper consideration of the Estimates. This should also free the Budget Bill from some of the confusion that has beset it this morning.

Sir John Gorman: Thank you for your masterly expositions, both today and yesterday.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill [NIA 6/00] be agreed.
The sitting was suspended at 1.09 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Government Resources and Accounts Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 (The Consolidated Fund)

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 2, lines 8 to 13, leave out subsection (4).
The following amendments stood in the Marshalled List:
No 2 (clause 3): In page 2, line 28, leave out "subsection" and insert "section". — [Mr Durkan.]
No 3 (clause 4): In page 3, lines 4 and 5, leave out subsection (4). — [Mr Durkan.]
No 4 (clause 4): In page 3, line 10, leave out "service on account of which" and insert
"Northern Ireland department or other body to which or person to whom". — [Mr Durkan.]
No 5 (clause 4): In page 3, line 12, leave out "subsection" and insert "section". — [Mr Durkan.]
No 6 (clause 5): In page 3, line 22, leave out "an Appropriation" and insert "a Budget". — [Mr Durkan.]
No 9 (clause 6): In page 3, leave out from "an Appropriation" in line 30 to end of line 33 and insert
"a Budget Act, direct that resources accruing to a department or a relevant body or person (‘accruing resources’) may be used for any purpose in any financial year in addition to resources authorised by Budget Act to be used for that purpose in that year." — [Mr Durkan.]
No 10 (clause 6): In page 3, line 38, leave out "an appropriation in aid" and insert "a use of accruing resources". — [Mr Durkan.]
No 11 (clause 6): In page 3, line 41, leave out "appropriation in aid" and insert "use of accruing resources". — [Mr Durkan.]
No 12 (clause 6): In page 4, lines 1 to 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
"(a) the money may be used in accordance with the Department’s direction, and
(b) in so far as not so used, it shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund." — [Mr Durkan.]
No 13 (clause 6): In page 4, line 6, leave out "appropriation in aid" and insert "use of accruing resources". — [Mr Durkan.]
No 14 (clause 6): In page 4, line 7, leave out "Appropriation" and insert "Budget". — [Mr Durkan.]
No 18 (schedule 1): In page 15, line 2, leave out "an Appropriation" and insert "a Budget". — [Mr Durkan.]

Mr Mark Durkan: This group of amendments is largely technical and represents the tidying-up of the way in which the Bill will set the framework for subsequent Budget Bills.
The starting point is that the control system up to now, based on cash control, has involved money being voted to services structured in a series of votes. The money available through a vote can be spent only on services within the ambit of the vote, and the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) will subsequently view expenditure on activities outside the ambit as irregular and not properly chargeable to the vote. That would then trigger qualification of the accounts and, if necessary, questions from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). This is a central aspect of the Assembly’s control of spending.
With the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting, there is a need for a shift of emphasis from control on the basis of cash to resources. The proposal is that cash should be allocated and controlled at departmental level but that the Assembly’s control of spending at service level should be preserved by a requirement that resources are used only within the ambit of the relevant request for resources.
Thus amendments 1, 3 and 4 provide for future Budget Bills to appropriate cash at departmental level, and they remove the requirements to identify cash drawdowns from the Consolidated Fund at a lower level. I stress that the raising of the level at which this control applies will be balanced by a new control on the use of resources at service level by Departments. I will say more about that later in relation to amendments 7 and 8.
Amendments 2 and 5 represent the simple tidying-up of terminology in the Bill — the removal of incorrect references to "subsection" and their replacement with "section" — and do not effect any change in its scope or its purpose.
Amendments 6, 14 and 18 simply replace the reference to "Appropriation Act" with the reference to "Budget Act" in order to reflect the change in title of the legislation referred to.
Amendments 9 to 13 deal with the simple change in terminology. Up to now, within limits defined in the Estimates, cash received by Departments could be used by them in addition to that directly appropriated by the Assembly. The term "appropriation in aid" has been applied to this concept. However, in future, such sums will be considered on an accruals basis and will be used to supplement resources authorised by the Assembly. Thus, the term "appropriation in aid" will be inappropriate and consequently will be replaced by "accruing resources".

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First, the Minister has written to the Committee indicating that he was minded to move these amendments.
He pointed out that the amendments were being proposed to ensure that the new resource accounting procedures would be afforded the same degree of legislative support as the outgoing cash-based system. The Assembly has been given certain powers with regard to the allocation of sums of money as appropriated by Assembly legislation. Those powers are provided under the Northern Ireland Act1998 but do not extend to non-cash-based resources. The Government Resources and Accounts Bill is being amended to provide the Assembly with the same powers in relation to the resources that are not cash-based as it already has for sums of money.
Members of the Finance and Personnel Committee have now received a further letter from the Finance Minister, which sets out the reasons for the amendments, but they have not had the opportunity to consider them in detail. However, on the basis of the Minister’s initial explanation of their effect, Committee members raised no objections to them.
Amendment No 1 agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 (Payment out of Consolidated Fund: standing services)
Amendment No 2 made: In page 2, line 28, leave out "subsection" and insert "section". — [Mr Durkan.]
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 4 (Payment out of Consolidated Fund: sums authorised by Act of the Assembly)
Amendment No 3 made: In page 3, lines 4 and 5, leave out subsection (4). — [Mr Durkan.]
Amendment No 4 made: In page 3, line 10, leave out "service on account of which" and insert
"Northern Ireland department or other body to which or person to whom". — [Mr Durkan.]
Amendment No 5 made: In page 3, line 12, leave out "subsection" and insert "section". — [Mr Durkan.]
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 (Application of sums issued)
Amendment No 6 made: In page 3, line 22, leave out "an Appropriation" and insert "a Budget". — [Mr Durkan.]
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New clause

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg to move amendment No 7: After clause 5, insert the following new clause:
"Use of resources
—(1) The use of resources by—
(a) a Northern Ireland department, and
(b) any relevant body or person,
for any purpose in any financial year must be authorised for that year by Budget Act or under section 6 and must not exceed any amount so authorised in relation to that purpose.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the use of resources for services which are under any statutory provision payable out of —
(a) the Consolidated Fund;
(b) the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund; or
(c) any other fund established under a statutory provision.
(3) Subsection (1) is subject to section (Use of resources without Budget Act)
(4) A body or person is a relevant body or person for the purposes of this section and section 6 if an estimate is approved by the Assembly for that body or person in respect of each financial year."
The following amendment stood in the Marshalled List:
No 8: After clause 5, insert the following new clause:
"Use of resources without Budget Act
—(1) If a Budget Act is not passed at least three working days before the end of a financial year ("year 1") authorising the use of resources mentioned in section (Use of resources) (1) for the service of the next financial year ("year 2"), the authorised officer of the Department may, subject to any Budget Act subsequently passed, authorise the use of resources for the service of year 2 for such purposes and up to such amounts as he may direct.
(2) The aggregate of the amounts authorised under subsection (1) for the service of year 2 shall not exceed 75 per cent of the total amount of resources authorised by Budget Act for the service of year 1.
(3) If a Budget Act is not passed before the end of July in any financial year authorising the use of resources mentioned in section (Use of resources) (1) for the service of the year, the authorised officer of the Department may, subject to any Budget Act subsequently passed, authorise the use of resources for the service of the year for such purposes and up to such amounts as he may direct.
(4) The aggregate of the amounts authorised under subsection (3) and (where applicable) the amounts authorised under subsection (1) for the service of any financial year shall not exceed 95 per cent of the total amount of resources authorised by Budget Act for the service of the preceding financial year.
(5) In this section "authorised officer", in relation to the Department, means the Permanent Secretary or such other officer as may be nominated by him for the purpose." — [Mr Durkan.]

Mr Mark Durkan: These amendments are a direct consequence of the transition to resource accounting and budgeting, and they are the most significant to be considered today. They will put in place a statutory basis for the control of resources by the Assembly, together with an associated fail-safe mechanism in the event that the Assembly fail to authorise the use of resources for any year.
I previously mentioned the raising of the level at which the control of cash will apply. Amendment7 balances that higher level of cash control by introducing in subsection (1) a control on the use of resources by Departments. That is a more stringent control than the previous cash-based approach, since it is possible that resources can be consumed without the use of cash.
In effect, this bases the control on departmental activity rather than on spend. I propose that the interpretation and application of this requirement should be the subject of discussion with the Assembly and especially with the Finance and Personnel Committee over the next few months.
For the Vote on Account the structure of the distribution of resources has been set at broadly the same level as in the former cash vote structure. That preserves the Assembly’s control in that Departments are unable to spend more on a particular set of purposes than the Main Estimates provision without seeking a Supplementary Estimate. However, I want to provide an opportunity for the structure of the new resource Estimates to be discussed more fully. We should take the opportunity to satisfy ourselves that we have a practicable and acceptable structure that helps to show the relationship between the objectives for each request for resources. This work should be tied closely to our work on public service agreements and should help us to develop a better and more transparent financial planning system.
It could be argued that it is not necessary to introduce powers with regard to the authorisation of resources for use by Departments, leaving the Department of Finance and Personnel to bring forward resource-based Estimates as a matter of policy and convention. That is, in effect, the position in Westminster. The Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 has no provision corresponding to that. However, the Executive have decided that this fundamental aspect of control by the Assembly should be firmly and specifically embodied in statute. It is important to note, however, that the new control should apply only to specific expenditure in the scope of the resource budgeting envelope.
Consequently, there is a need to provide for some exceptions. That is the purpose of subsection(2). It is no different from the position under the previous cash regime when the funds mentioned were outside the cash control. Subsection(3) is a reference to amendment8, which I will turn to shortly. Subsection (4) simply defines the Departments and bodies to which this new control applies as those bodies for which an Estimate is approved. They are currently the main Departments — the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas (OFREG), the Assembly Ombudsman for NorthernIreland and the NorthernIreland Assembly. Amendment7 will have the effect of making actions by Departments that commit resources subject to authorisation by the Assembly. That will apply even if they do not immediately require cash.
Making a commitment to a contractor would be immediately recognised in the accounts of the Department. Under resource accounting and budgeting, that would have to be within the constraints set by the relevant Budget Bill. Therefore, amendment8 contains a fail-safe mechanism, which parallels that in section59 of the NorthernIreland Act 1998 to allow for the possibility that the Assembly might not approve a Budget Bill in time. Section59 relates only to cash control. The creation of this safety net is a prudent but, it is hoped, redundant step in respect of public expenditure. I emphasise that it is the responsibility of all Members to ensure that this provision remains redundant. However, if it does not, for whatever reason, the mechanism is essential in that it will ensure the continuity of public services in Northern Ireland.
I hope that Members will readily acknowledge that we could not tolerate a situation where the absence of authority for Departments to act would mean a break, however brief, in the provision of essential public services, which include vital protections for us all and include meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged in the community.

Mr Francie Molloy: I have nothing to add at this stage.
Amendment No 7 agreed to.
New clause
Amendment No 8 made:
"Use of resources without Budget Act
—(1) If a Budget Act is not passed at least three working days before the end of a financial year ("year 1") authorising the use of resources mentioned in section (Use of resources) (1) for the service of the next financial year ("year 2"), the authorised officer of the Department may, subject to any Budget Act subsequently passed, authorise the use of resources for the service of year 2 for such purposes and up to such amounts as he may direct.
(2) The aggregate of the amounts authorised under subsection (1) for the service of year 2 shall not exceed 75 per cent of the total amount of resources authorised by Budget Act for the service of year 1.
(3) If a Budget Act is not passed before the end of July in any financial year authorising the use of resources mentioned in section (Use of resources) (1) for the service of the year, the authorised officer of the Department may, subject to any Budget Act subsequently passed, authorise the use of resources for the service of the year for such purposes and up to such amounts as he may direct.
(4) The aggregate of the amounts authorised under subsection (3) and (where applicable) the amounts authorised under subsection (1) for the service of any financial year shall not exceed 95 per cent of the total amount of resources authorised by Budget Act for the service of the preceding financial year.
(5) In this section ‘authorised officer’, in relation to the Department, means the Permanent Secretary or such other officer as may be nominated by him for the purpose." — [Mr Durkan.]
Clause 6 (Appropriation in aid)
Amendment No 9 made: In page 3, leave out from "an Appropriation" in line 30 to end of line 33 and insert
"a Budget Act, direct that resources accruing to a department or a relevant body or person (‘accruing resources’) may be used for any purpose in any financial year in addition to resources authorised by Budget Act to be used for that purpose in that year." — [Mr Durkan.]
Amendment No 10 made: In page 3, line 38, leave out "an appropriation in aid" and insert "a use of accruing resources". — [Mr Durkan.]
Amendment No 11 made: In page 3, line 41, leave out "appropriation in aid" and insert "use of accruing resources". — [Mr Durkan.]
Amendment No 12 made: In page 4, lines 1 to 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
"(a) the money may be used in accordance with the Department’s direction, and
(b) in so far as not so used, it shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund." — [Mr Durkan.]
Amendment No 13 made: In page 4, line 6, leave out "appropriation in aid" and insert "use of accruing resources". — [Mr Durkan.]
Amendment No 14 made: In page 4, line 7, leave out "Appropriation" and insert "Budget". — [Mr Durkan.]
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: As no amendments have been tabled to clauses 7 to 17, I shall, by leave, put the Question on these clauses en bloc.
Clauses 7 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 (Advisory Group)

Mr James Leslie: I beg to move amendment No 15: In page 9, line 27, leave out "take full" and insert "consult with and take".
The following amendments stood in the Marshalled List:
No 16 (clause 20): In page 11, line 2, leave out "at any reasonable time". — [Mr Molloy.]
No 17 (clause 20): In page 11, line 25, after "nature" insert ", has received significant public funds,". — [Mr Dodds.]

Mr James Leslie: During the first Consideration Stage of this Bill last week, I advised the House that if my amendment relating to this clause was successful, I would move a further amendment this week to effect the necessary changes. I was aware that some tidying was needed in the drafting. In the subsequent period, I consulted with rather more skilled draftsmen than myself, and consequently the amendment should take care of the outstanding issues. The effect of the amendment will not be in any way to reduce the extra power of
"the group of persons for the time being selected by the Treasury" ,
which was the thrust of the amendment last week. The substance of the matter there is that the Department shall take account of all recommendations — that remains intact.
Members may note that the word "full", which was in the amendment last week, is being deleted. The reasoning is that there is no distinction in drafting between "account" and "full account". Taking account is taking account, and therefore there is no need for the word "full". It is superfluous, and I have therefore removed it.
The words "consult with and take" are suggested in order to ensure that clause 18(1) corresponds with clause 18(2), which uses the words
"where a group is consulted under subsection (1)".
That is required to ensure consistency of language, but in doing so it does not in any way take away from the powers reserved to this group by the amendment last week. Therefore this amendment does the necessary tidying up in the drafting but preserves the import of the amendment that we passed at the Consideration Stage. I trust that the House will support this amendment.
I want to address a few remarks to amendment 17, standing in the name of Mr Dodds. I will not pre-empt Mr Dodds’s own remarks, but I want to focus on the significance of "substantially" in the clause at line 26. Members should recall that this entire clause was inserted at the behest of the Public Accounts Committee and supported by the Finance and Personnel Committee. The Comptroller and Auditor General was also satisfied with it when consulted. I was very happy that this clause was passed last week, as I felt it added considerably to our ability to keep a check on where public money was going.
The question posed by the amendment is whether the Comptroller and Auditor General can properly survey all the relevant money. I invite the Minister to dwell on what he considers the words "substantially funded from public money" to mean. It is possible that the wording of the clause will, in practice, cover the wording proposed in the amendment, but that is a matter, to some extent, of interpretation. I hope that the Minister will enlighten the House when he addresses this clause.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Before addressing the Committee’s amendment (No 16), I want to comment on amendment 15, which relates to Mr Leslie’s new clause 18, adopted by the Assembly at the Consideration Stage.
This clause introduces the requirement to have a body to oversee the issuing of guidance by the Department of Finance and Personnel to other Government Departments. It has been argued that Mr Leslie’s amendment was flawed because it assumed that the Department of Finance and Personnel would consult with the new body. This perceived weakness has been corrected in the amendment that has been proposed by Mr Leslie and which the Committee supports.
Regarding the Committee’s amendment 16, Members will recall that the Assembly adopted an earlier amendment intended to lift restrictions on the Comptroller and Auditor General and his access to documents during an audit investigation. The Minister has kindly pointed out that there is now a contradiction between the Comptroller and Auditor General’s access powers when pursuing an audit and when undertaking an inspection under the new clause 20. I thank the Minister for drawing that to the Committee’s attention.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General has unrestricted powers of access when undertaking an inspection of the accounts of any body covered by clause 20. The Committee concluded that it was particularly important that the Comptroller and Auditor General should not be subjected to inappropriate delay when inspecting the accounts of bodies that are remote from the core Civil Service.
Finally, I want to comment briefly on amendment 17, which stands in the name of Mr Dodds.
At Consideration Stage, the additional wording proposed by Mr Dodds was first included in the Committee’s original amendment to extend the C&AG’s powers of inspection. The Committee accepted the Minister’s amendment to extend the powers of the C&AG to investigate bodies receiving public funds. However, the Committee made it clear that the amendment did not go as far as Members wished in order to ensure full public accountability of how public money is used by all bodies that receive significant public funds.
We welcomed the additional amendments made by the Minister to strengthen the C&AG’s power to inspect in advance of the Sharman Report on the audit and accountability of public money. The Sharman Report has now been published and will be considered by the Committee. I am sure that we will endorse many of its findings and recommendations. We will pursue them vigorously in collaboration with the Audit Committee and the Public Accounts Committee when the audit reorganisation Bill arrives in the autumn.
The Committee has not considered Mr Dodds amendment formally and has not formed a view on it. I would welcome an indication from the Minister that he will take the Sharman Report into account when dealing with the audit reorganisation Bill later this year.

Mr Nigel Dodds: As regards amendment 17, the issue concerning the Comptroller and Auditor General’s powers of inspection has had more than a fair airing in the Finance and Personnel Committee and in the House during the Consideration Stage last week.
It is fair to say that during consideration by the Finance Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the Audit Committee and the Assembly, the Minister has taken on board some of our concerns relating to the inadequacy of the G&AG’s powers of inspection in respect of private, non-governmental bodies that may be in receipt of public funds. He has moved some way on that issue.
However, concern still exists, and it has been reinforced by the publication of the Sharman Report. This necessitates our coming back to this issue and looking at it in more detail. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s definition of these words in clause 20(3)(b):
"the body exercises functions of a public nature or is entirely or substantially funded from public money."
To put that into context, we are talking about the ability of the C&AG to follow public money, to inspect how a government body, a non-governmental organisation, a private body or a community organisation spends public money. It is a fundamental principle that we are all agreed on. The question is: how do we approach it? The Minister has suggested that clause 20(3)(b) is not the most appropriate way to deal with it, and has suggested to the Committee that we leave it to be dealt with by another piece of legislation.
However, the principle is that wherever public money is granted, allocated or appropriated, the C&AG should have a responsibility to follow that money, to inspect how it is spent, to ensure that it is spent in accordance with the wishes of the Assembly and in accordance with the purposes for which it was allocated.
It is very important that, when considering this legislation, we give the C&AG the power to follow public money. We are looking at powers of inspection, not powers of audit. We are talking about the right to inspect; we are not talking about giving the C&AG wholesale power to audit private organisations.
We have now had the benefit of seeing the report made by Lord Sharman. It is a detailed report, and the Finance and Personnel Committee will be looking at it in some detail. The Sharman review of audit accountability was established to examine current audit and accountability arrangements for central government and to make recommendations.
In page 13 of the report Lord Sharman says,
"Many private sector organisations receive grants and subsidy from central Government bodies. In law, money given as grant ceases to be public money when it is paid to the recipient. However, it is generally recognised that there is a need for public accountability for such monies, to ensure that they are being spent properly and value for money is achieved."
We can all heartily agree with that.
Lord Sharman goes on to give examples of arrangements for access in other countries by their equivalent of the Comptroller and Auditor General and by national audit offices. He points out that there are arrangements in other countries to allow auditors to inspect how public funds have been used. For instance, in France all private bodies that receive money from public funds can be examined by the appropriate body. Where public funds exceed 50% of turnover, all the funds can be examined. In Germany, the appropriate body is able to examine the financial management of private entities that receive grants or guarantees. In Denmark, a similar statutory right of access to bodies — private or otherwise — that receive grants is available, and similarly in Holland.
I draw attention to the Sharman Report because it backs up the points that have been made by many of us concerning the need to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General has the necessary powers. He himself admitted, when he gave evidence to the Committee, that the original draft of the legislation was not going to give him those powers. The famous example is that of the football club because that happened to coincide with an announcement by the Minister of grant moneys. Certain football clubs, as private organisations, were going to be in receipt of substantial public funds. Under current law — and as originally drafted — the Comptroller and Auditor General would not have the right of inspection to see that that public money was being spent in the way that it should be. That is clearly a loophole, and it needs to be closed. I have tabled an amendment that will address that. At the Consideration Stage last week, a reference to bodies that are
"entirely or substantially funded from public money"
was inserted into the Bill.
I will listen carefully to the Minister, but it is important that at the earliest opportunity we, as an Assembly, insert in legislation the right of the Comptroller and Auditor General to inspect the accounts of any organisation in receipt of significant public funds. The right to follow that money is all-important, and we must ensure that that right is not fettered in any way.

Mr Peter Weir: I support all three amendments. I do not know whether the proposers of the amendments will be happy about this or whether they will regard it as the kiss of death.
I will deal first with the two least controversial amendments. Mr Leslie’s amendment was certainly a very good step forward, and it was accepted. It had the power to tighten up the independence of the advisory body and to ensure that the Department of Finance and Personnel takes account of that body. Mr Leslie’s amendment today keeps within the spirit and the letter of his previous one, but tightens up the wording to ensure that it is compatible with the rest of the clause. It is a worthwhile amendment, and there should be no controversy about it.
Similarly, the amendment in the name of the Committee to remove the words "at a reasonable time" was established last week as a principle in another clause, but makes it compatible with the provisions of the Bill. A test of reasonableness will be applied by the courts in any case, but that need not be explicitly included in the Bill. This amendment would make the Bill consistent and bring it into line with what was proposed at Consideration Stage.
There may be great division on Mr Dodds’s amendment. I welcome the changes proposed by the Minister last week because they moved much closer to addressing some of the concerns raised. At that stage, I said that I was looking for an amendment to further tighten control, and this amendment does that.
As a general principle, it is important that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have inspection powers to allow him to follow public money. At the outset, it should be noted that we are talking about inspection powers rather than audit powers. I do not, therefore, believe that the powers impose too great a burden on non-governmental bodies. They fulfil the key principle that one must be able to follow Government money. It is an important check and balance to ensure that public money, which is voted through by the Assembly, is not abused in any way.
The key question posed by both Mr Leslie and Mr Dodds is the definition of the terms "substantially funded" and "receipt of significant public funds". I am keen to hear the Minister’s comments on this matter, but it strikes me that there is a clear and qualitative difference between those two phrases — they cannot be compatible. The wording encompasses a body that is entirely funded from public funds — that meaning is clear to everyone — yet it also encompasses a body that is "substantially funded" from the public purse.
The term "substantially funded" refers to the proportion or percentage of a body’s finances that are derived from the public purse. For example, a voluntary group might have an annual budget of £50,000, of which £40,000 comes from the public purse. That represents about 80% of its budget and, consequently, there can be no argument that it is not "substantially funded" from the public purse. In contrast, the phrase "in receipt of significant public funds", when used to describe a group that has received public funds, refers to the quantity of money involved rather than to the percentage of public money received. Therefore, one could have a private body that has an annual budget of £10 million, of which £1 million comes from the public purse. That is a significant amount of money, yet it represents just 10% of the body’s budget. It is arguable that the body could not be described as one which is "substantially funded" from the public purse.
It would be a ridiculous situation if bodies receiving large amounts of public money were to fall outside the remit of the Bill because of the percentage of turnover a grant represented, while small groups that are entirely funded from the public purse were subject to inspection. If we are to avoid the abuse of public finances, we need to cover both situations — a body that is entirely or substantially funded from the public purse and a body that is receiving significant funds.
If the amendment were accepted it would cover both those situations and ensure that public funds are properly spent. The Minister could question the exact meaning of "significant funding", yet the definition of "substantially funded" could also be queried because the percentage of a body’s finances referred to is unclear. Clearly, the two terms have different meanings — one refers to proportion, and the other to amount. These matters should be decided by a test of reasonableness applied by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The amendment adds to the strength of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but, what is most important, it enshrines the key principles that public money should be allocated properly and that there should be redress by way of inspection. This amendment, as the other two, is worthy of the Assembly’s support.

Mr John Dallat: I oppose the amendment put forward by Mr Dodds, not because of the principle behind it, but because of the recent publication of the Sharman Report. It is necessary for the Audit Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and, no doubt, the Finance and Personnel Committee to study the report in order to bring accountability of the public auditor forward to the next stage. There is, of course, the audit reorganisation Bill which has to be considered in the future as well.
We should also bear in mind that we have an undertaking from the Minister to co-operate with the three Chairpersons. He has given us assurances that he will give serious consideration to the issues that were raised today by Mr Dodds. I welcome that, and support any extended powers that will give greater accountability without having an adverse effect on people who apply for public money, particularly for the community projects referred to. I am worried that if we pass the amendment in the name of Mr Dodds at this time, without due consideration, we may create the very opposite of what we all wish to achieve, which is to ensure that money actually gets to the people who need it most. In no way do I question his sincerity in matters relating to audit issues. Indeed, I thank him for his support this morning when he added his voice of concern to my worries about the procurement procedures and conflict of interest issues involving the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, contained in last week’s audit report. I want to hear more Members speaking out, particularly those who have taken public accounts as a specialist subject.
As Chairman of the Audit Committee, I wish to put on record my gratitude for the remarkable degree of co-operation between the Finance and Personnel Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee. I wish to put on record my appreciation of the Minister’s desire to encourage an open approach to financial accountability. The relationships within the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee are a model for other Committees to emulate.
It is essential that we maintain that partnership because there is no doubt that this is the way forward if we are to address the undesirable practices that have crept into Departments and other agencies that spend money on behalf of the Government. I am sure that real progress has been made in the whole field of public accountability. The public are watching very carefully how we bring that forward in a managed way. At long last, after 30 years of non-accountability, there is a new awareness that this Assembly is beginning to create change, and nowhere is this more evident than in the field of finance and public expenditure.
It is critical that we continue to sing from the same hymn sheet and deliver real change, rather than aspire to change. This Bill, as amended, gives us the scope required to begin the process of extending powers of scrutiny. From that secure base, we can take the process forward, bearing in mind that the Minister has given us an undertaking that he will consider further powers for the public auditor.
We should wait until we have considered the Sharman Report before considering the amendment put forward by Mr Dodds, because we do not want to do anything that would discourage those in greatest need from applying for public funds. Apart from that, I have no fundamental disagreement with it.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am happy to follow the remarks made by Mr Weir. He put his finger on the key issue, and I will follow on from his speech in a moment. I am not so happy to follow Mr Dallat, who seems to have an identity crisis that we need to resolve. He stood up, purporting to be acting as Chairman of the Audit Committee. Those were his very first words, as the Official Report will show. He then said that he was opposing the amendment in the name of Mr Dodds. I will be interested to hear of the decision of the Audit Committee to take such a position. As he was speaking in his capacity as Chairman, it is a strange position to adopt. Even more strange — [Interruption].

Mr John Dallat: I was simply making a plea for an opportunity for my Committee to discuss the Sharman Report and then perhaps take on board everything that has been said.

Mr Peter Robinson: The record will show very clearly that Mr Dallat stood up, purporting to speak as Chairman of the Audit Committee, and said that he opposed my Colleague’s amendment. Mr Dallat is shaking his head, so he obviously does not even remember what he said a few moments ago. His justification for that position was even wilder — he said that he was opposing it because of the Sharman Report. I do not know whether he has read the Sharman report, but he certainly could not have understood it, because that report justifies the position that we have adopted.
I am sure that the author of the briefing note for the Committee will not mind if I quote from it:
"It is also interesting, in light of discussions in the Finance and Personnel Committee, that Sharman has accepted the case for public sector audit access to any grant receiving body. This would fully cover the football club example which was of concern to some members of the DFP Committee."
The Sharman Report is therefore a justification for our amendment rather than a reason for opposing it. That means either that the Member was being mischievous in simply attempting to support his party Colleague, the Minister, or that he did not understand the Sharman Report, or simply that he did not read it.
It is clear that the Sharman Report goes further than the proposed legislation. It seeks to create broader rights of access than those allowed under the legislation. Therefore, we cite the Sharman report as evidence in support of our amendment.
Reference to the football analogy was made in the briefing note. It may be worthwhile to outline this analogy for Members who are not familiar with it. It just so happened that on one of the days on which the Finance and Personnel Committee met to discuss this matter, the Culture, Arts and Leisure Minister made a statement to the Assembly about funding for football clubs in Northern Ireland. He said that the funds would be distributed among several clubs, but that, as a pre-requisite to drawing down the Government grant, each club would have to cover 25% of development costs from its own funds. This was a reasonable and sensible proposal on the part of the Minister.
However, the Minister then said that two football clubs were unable to take up the funding, because they could not cover 25% of the costs of the development work. Several football clubs may have on their boards of directors a building contractor who, it is suggested, could quote a higher price for work and then give the club a 25% discount. That would mean the Government paying the whole sum. The Minister, from his standpoint, was not able to involve himself in that degree of detail. However, if the Comptroller and Auditor General were able to follow money right down to the point where it was actually spent, he could make sufficient enquiries to gauge whether the Government were paying 100% or 75% of the money actually spent on development work.
Initially, the Comptroller and Auditor General said that he was satisfied with the wording of the legislation proposed by the Minister. However, when this football analogy was presented to him during the Finance and Personnel’s evidence session, he recognised that he had not taken account of that set of circumstances and that the situation could be guarded against by implementing a proposal such as the one which is contained in our amendment. That is merely an example of one set of circumstances, but since then I have been able to let my imagination stretch to many other cases in which the Comptroller and Auditor General would not be able to follow the pounds to check that they were being spent in the way in which the Assembly, or a Department, intended.
We must not pass this legislation only to have to come back to it, as will be the case. One day we will read in the headlines of ‘The Belfast Telegraph’ that money voted by the Assembly has been used for the wrong purpose or in some way that was not intended.
And we will all throw our hands up and say "This is terrible. We must do something about it." I contend that we can do something about it now by giving powers to the Comptroller and Auditor General that will allow him free access to follow the pounds that are voted by the Assembly, no matter where they go. We have specified a significant amount of money.
We now come to the issue that was raised by the Member for North Down. If we simply say, as the legislation does, that the body in question exercises functions of a public nature, or is entirely or substantially funded from public money, the body’s annual accounts will show that a substantial proportion of its funding comes directly from Government sources.
However, if it is a one-off grant, the body will not be classified under this legislation as substantially funded from Government sources. The grant might be a substantial amount in one financial year. There might also be an argument about whether substantial funding is for both revenue and capital spending. Under our amendment, if passed, if a significant amount of money is given even on a one-off basis by the Department, the Department will be significantly funding that body in that one year, and the Comptroller and Auditor General will have the power to pursue the money.
I will mention another factor. To a community organisation in east Belfast, £10,000 might be a substantial amount of money — in fact it might be enough to run the show for a year. However, to a larger organisation, a grant of £10,000 might amount to a very small part of its funding. Are we saying that it is not the amount of money we vote through this Assembly nor the amount allocated by a Department to a body that matters? Are we saying that it is the scale of the body that determines whether the Comptroller and Auditor General should pursue it? That is the gist of the legislation that is being proposed today: the size of the organisation and its budget will determine whether an amount of money is substantial or not. That is entirely wrong. If the amount is significant of itself, it should not matter what proportion of the overall expenditure or funding of the organisation it may constitute.
Therefore for all of those reasons I support the amendment in the name of my Colleague. I believe that it is in line with what Sharman would wish us to do. Indeed, it may be that he took his lead from the Finance and Personnel Committee and decided that it was necessary to have his report toughened up to deal with this set of circumstances.
I hope that the Minister will not want to push a piece of legislation through the Assembly because he has gone firm on it, or simply for the sake of it. I hope that he is prepared to recognise that Sharman wants the toughest possible role for the Comptroller and Auditor General to enable the man to see what is going on. I trust that the Minister will not try to curtail this amendment for the sake of holding on to his own piece of legislation and attempting to get it through the House unscathed. I regret very much the action taken by the Chairperson of the Audit Committee on his own behalf; I suspect that his Committee has not come to that conclusion.

Mr Mark Durkan: Three amendments have been addressed in this group, and I intend to deal with each of them in turn.
I accept the amendment tabled by Mr Leslie. It removes a technical deficiency to the amendment that was passed at Consideration Stage, and it is acceptable to the Executive. The insertion of the requirement to consult makes good the technical deficiency that I pointed out in the Chamber.
I am pleased to note that Mr Leslie now accepts that to "take full account", as in his original amendment, would essentially have been unworkable because it was impossible to define. A reference to "having regard to", which is the formulation used elsewhere in the Bill, could have been used, but the Executive consider that "take account of" is acceptable.
In light of earlier comments, I stress that it was always my intention that the independent views of the Financial Reporting Advisory Board (FRAB) should genuinely influence and inform the Department of Finance and Personnel on accounting matters. Some Members have pointed out that this was not covered in the original Bill. However, I did address it at the Second Stage of the Bill and said that I wanted views from relevant Committees on how that independent advice could best be provided. The advice was that it should come from FRAB, and that has been accommodated. It is important to underline that.
I am disappointed that there is a perception that some issues need to be made more explicit. However, I accept the Assembly’s view. I am satisfied that my original purpose has been served and that the Department of Finance and Personnel should consult with an independent, expert body before issuing formal directions on accounting matters. Subject to the addition of three words, the clause now stands as I originally submitted it to the Finance and Personnel Committee.
I thank the Committee for its deliberations and thoroughness.
I accept amendment 16 tabled by the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Francie Molloy. As I said during the Consideration Stage of the Bill, the Wednesbury test of reasonableness will apply in any case. The work of the Comptroller and Auditor General will not be made any more effective by the deletion of the words "at any reasonable time". In case there is any misunderstanding, I stress that the test of reasonableness and arbitration on what is reasonable time never lay with the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Wednesbury test clearly falls to the Comptroller and Auditor General; the Department of Finance and Personnel is not the arbiter, contrary to the impression that some Members have given. The amendment is technical and makes the wording in the Bill consistent, as Francie Molloy and I have pointed out. Again, I thank the Chairperson and his Colleagues on the Finance and Personnel Committee for their careful and persistent work in the scrutiny of this Bill.
Amendment 17 raises several points, and several Members have spoken on it. One of the points concerns the stress laid on ensuring public accountability, something we would all like to see. Questions have been asked on how the Executive intend to achieve this. The main way to ensure accountability is for each Department to put in place and to operate effective conditions for grants and for checks to be made on how these are being spent. There seems to be a misapprehension that, once allocations have been made, the Comptroller and Auditor General is the only person who has the power to check on how moneys are being spent and if they are being spent on the purposes for which they were intended.
It is important to underline the duties and functions that Departments have in that regard and not simply to say that it is entirely up to the Comptroller and Auditor General to find those things out. Due diligence and proper management by Departments needs to be followed through. I hope that all the departmental Committees take an interest in that. In opposing amendment 17, I point out that the amendment accepted from me last week secures access for the Comptroller and Auditor General to all bodies substantially funded from public funds. The question of what that means has been raised. It means 50% or more. Many bodies receive significant funds well below 50%. In an urgent or particular case, the Comptroller and Auditor General can be given access by order of the Department of Finance and Personnel, which I will deal with later.
I now wish to raise some further points on the amendment. It is an important principle that those who are governed clearly understand the circumstances in which they will be held to account. Those who exercise functions of regulation should not be provided with unfettered discretion unless that is absolutely necessary. As the term "significant" is not defined, the proposed amendment could allow the Comptroller and Auditor General full access to the documents, books and records of virtually all organisations that do business with Government. If amendment 17 is made, the consequences may inhibit people who might otherwise participate through work with voluntary sector organisations. If the Comptroller and Auditor General — [Interruption].

Mr Peter Weir: The Minister said that the term "significant" is not defined. Apart from the verbal assurance that the Minister has given that "substantial" means above 50%, can the Minister say where "substantially" is defined in the Bill?

Mr Mark Durkan: I will continue with the point I was going to make. I was asked to state what "substantial" means, and I said that it means 50% or more. I also said, on the basis of the amendments already adopted, that the Comptroller and Auditor General’s access is not unnecessarily restricted. It is fairly clear that it is only restricted where funding is above that level.

Mr Peter Robinson: That is very disrespectful of the Minister. He really should behave in a way more becoming to his Office. He raises an issue of some importance, yet the legislation does not contain the words that he has uttered in the House. Therefore, the Assembly has the right to probe him so that in any case that may follow, the Comptroller and Auditor General, if not everybody else, knows what the Minister’s mind is on the issue. If, in any financial year, a body that does not get funding from a Government source on a regular basis gets a "substantial" amount of money — as defined by the Minister today — even if it is a one-off grant for an item of capital expenditure and not for revenue funding, is the Comptroller and Auditor General allowed to investigate its accounts?

Mr Mark Durkan: I will cover that point as I continue my reply. In dealing with the amendment, I have already made some points. Moreover, if the Comptroller and Auditor General has what might be deemed to be unfettered access to all bodies receiving public funding of whatever amount, some people may feel that they could face disproportionate scrutiny and that honest mistakes could lead to unwelcome publicity. In relation to the private sector, commercially sensitive information could be open to examination. That could undermine the confidence of existing and potential inward investors to the region.
It could also be perceived by some as amounting to an unwarranted right of interference into the private sector. I make the point — if people will allow me to do so — that we need to take care while trying to achieve sound principles of accountability and in ensuring proper use of public money that Members have identified that we do not undermine our work to achieve value for money by making provisions before we think carefully about them. That might perhaps have the effect of inhibiting some firms from tendering for Government business, precisely because they might find themselves open to inspections that they do not want. Therefore, we need to remember that there are purposes that we want to achieve in the business arrangements that we make.

Mr Seamus Close: In light of the Minister’s comments, how can we hope to see the full implementation of the Sharman Report, which seek even greater powers than those currently in front of this House?

Mr Mark Durkan: I am coming to that. Many points have been made both here and in the Committees, although some have been represented differently today, and on previous occasions, than earlier in the Committees. Therefore, I think that I have the right to address the points. I do think —

Mr Speaker: Order. Many points have been raised. If the Minister were to conclude his remarks, Members might be able to judge whether he has addressed the questions they have rightly raised. This is the Committee Stage, and therefore a degree of toing and froing is possible and appropriate. If the Minister were to have the opportunity to speak, Members may be able to determine whether the questions they asked have been answered.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether I am reading too much into your remarks. Are you saying that after the Minister has spoken, we will have the opportunity to ask him further questions? I ask, because the Minister introduced new issues. When I attempted to elicit further details from him, he tossed his head in the air, impatience showing in his face, and he did not seem to want to have interventions.

Mr Speaker: I took from what the Minister said, both subsequent to that occasion and again when he had an intervention today, that he had some of the answers to these questions written down and was eager to deliver them to the Assembly. It will only be possible to judge that when we have come to the end of the Minister’s responses. I do have to say — with some degree of understanding — that the Minister has been making responses to the Assembly for almost two full days on several issues. I think it is fair to mention that. He should be allowed to continue. There is a form of intervention, with which I am familiar in another place, whereby at stages of this kind, Members can get to their feet as the Minister sits down, and before sitting down the Minister may respond. As long as such a procedure is not abused, it may be a useful device in this House also. The proposer of the amendment is, I see, also itching to get to his feet to respond. I mean the mover of No 15.

Mr Mark Durkan: Mr Speaker, before you are asked to rule on a point of order, if a toss of the head is an unparliamentary reflex, I apologise to the House.
I want to take up the point that has just been raised regarding what we can look forward to, and I want to make this very clear. In the points that I have just made, about how others could view the provisions sought by the amendment in the current circumstances, I am not saying that the Comptroller and Auditor General should not be given inspection rights over such bodies. I have made it clear that I am very open to looking further at that area. However, if the Comptroller and Auditor General is to be given those rights, it should be after rather more thought, care and consultation than has been possible in relation to this particular Bill.
Budget statements have been brought forward at draft stage and again at revised stage. In addition, there have been debates on the Programme for Government, and the details of both the Programme for Government and the Budget have gone to Committees. Despite all that, Members have said that there is still not enough consultation for this House and that the relevant Committees have not been able to consider things properly.
In talking about financial arrangements, as we are in this Bill, there are issues not just for the three Committees that have been particularly looking at this — namely, the Finance and Personnel Committee, the Audit Committee and the Public Accounts Committee — but also for other Committees that have an interest in the affairs of business. They might want to consider the implications of this amendment, and might have views to give on it. Committees that are dealing with Departments that have many transactions, or that use the community and voluntary sectors for the delivery of certain programmes, might have a view about the implications of such provisions or what sort of balances or provisions need to be put in to qualify them.
We need to make sure that we have a degree of consideration in this House and with the relevant Committees, rather than adopting a legislative measure now in a simple reflex response to the very valuable Sharman Report. That report was published last week. Among other things, it envisages the development of de minimus thresholds for access, and of protocols governing the conduct of inspections.
When this amendment was pressed at Committee Stage, one of the points that I made was that we should not adopt it, but wait for the Sharman Report and consider that issue and any other issues that the report raised. People said that they did not want to wait for the Sharman Report; that I would only tie people to it, and that it was a Whitehall document that would not go far. I am glad that people already see the benefit of the Sharman Report, but they are referring to one aspect of it. There are many other issues that we need to take on board and properly consider, not just in relation to that particular point but to other points as well.
Therefore, the amendment is to be opposed. It is not timely, in that sense. I am glad that there does not appear to be a disagreement between us on the relative worth of the Sharman Report. I am not aware that any Committee has yet been able to consider the implications of the Sharman Report in relation to this, or any other, point. We should take the time to do so. It could be in the Assembly’s interest, and certainly in the interests of many people looking to this Assembly, or to Departments, as far as the conduct of their affairs is concerned.
We need to recognise that there is a proper role for both the voluntary sector and the private sector in a mixed economy. We need to respect their proper roles, alongside appropriate mechanisms of accountability and regulation, and recognise that people appreciate the value, importance and, at all times, the integrity of public moneys and the uses to which they are put.
Adopting this amendment in the context of the Bill, without wider consideration and consultation, would mean that we would be unable to move forward in a balanced way.
The amendment also ignores the fact that I gave the necessary assurances to the Public Accounts Committee, the Audit Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee about matters raised by those Committees and in the context of the forthcoming audit reorganisation Bill. I believe that those assurances have been accepted by the Committees. After discussions with the Committees, I introduced, through the amendments made at Consideration Stage, improved inspection rights for the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of public sector bodies.
Under the provisions of the Bill, the Comptroller and Auditor General will have unlimited inspection and access rights to the accounts documents and records of all public sector bodies. He will also have the right to inspect any records that he requires to carry out financial audits and value-for-money studies on all public money expended. For bodies that are not in the public sector, Departments will have to prepare the documentation required by the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out his inspections, whether the public money involved is applied as grant-in-aid or as grant. There is no restriction on the Comptroller and Auditor General’s right to inspect the accounts and documentation that he needs to fulfil his function.
The gaps in public sector accountability have been closed by the amendment that I proposed at Consideration Stage. It would be inappropriate to extend those inspection rights to cover voluntary and private sector bodies in this Bill, especially as we have had no consultation with the relevant interests.
The Bill will give the Department of Finance and Personnel wide-ranging powers to give the Comptroller and Auditor General access to documents. I also introduced the amendment that was made to clause 19(10), which now requires the Department of Finance and Personnel to have regard to the views of the Public Accounts Committee in any matters of concern. Therefore, if there is a cause for concern about the use of public funds by a body in any sector, action will be taken.
I assured the Committee that we would consult widely on the issue of additional rights and powers for the Comptroller and Auditor General and that I would submit proposals in the context of the Sharman Report. That report has just been published, and its recommendations are complex. During the passage of the Bill, I have given assurances that the review of audit and accountability arrangements in Northern Ireland would be dealt with in the forthcoming audit reorganisation Bill. I have also emphasised the importance of consultation with bodies that may be affected by any new powers given to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Members will also have to be canvassed for their opinion. To proceed on any other basis would be to put us in a situation in which different Departments and Committees would start to identify problems and concerns for private and voluntary bodies about the implications of the Bill. We should deal with the issues in the round in a Bill that is well placed and well timed to address them; that Bill is the audit reorganisation Bill.
The Sharman Report has been published, and proposals on how the consultation process will be handled will be brought forward. Some Members have emphasised to me the value of consultation on everything else, but they have not done so with that report. It would be premature to speak about the application of the recommendations of the report before the consideration of the report and before consultation has taken place.
I am not saying in principle that we should never have provisions of the type suggested in that amendment. I am saying that we should make the right provisions, reflecting full consideration of all the implications and interests concerned — not least the key public interest that the Assembly has to protect. We have to do that through the right legislation.
Time has been constrained for this legislation because we have had to introduce it in time for the next financial year. The audit reorganisation Bill is not subject to those same urgencies. In dealing with all three Committees on the legislation, I have stressed, as Members indicated, that examination of many of the outstanding issues could be taken up in the audit reorganisation Bill. The three Committees, as well as other departmental Committees, can also do that through fuller consideration of the implications of the Sharman Report and its significant recommendations

Mr Peter Robinson: Has the Minister inadvertently forgotten that he was going to come to several questions during his speech? One was from the Member for North Down, who queried where the Minister had tucked away the definition of "substantially" in his legislation. I asked whether in one year a capital project grant would be judged "substantial" if it was 50% of the amount given to a firm, company or community organisation in that year.

Mr Speaker: Do you wish to reply, Minister?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thought I had dealt with the point about 50%. Let me make the position clear: the Comptroller and Auditor General, whether under the current provisions or any other amendment, will take his own view on whatever concerns he may have or that are brought to him. If anybody else was prepared to say that an impediment was being created by saying "No, it cannot be 50% in a given year; it has to be over a longer time or over the life of the project", or vice versa, I do not think that there would be an issue. No equivalent provision exists in the Westminster legislation. The Department of Finance and Personnel and the amendments provide for our taking account of the Public Accounts Committee’s views on any issues of doubt or concern.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I will be brief because we have covered the issues. However, there is a danger that in a debate like this we get so tied up with technicalities that we lose sight of the principle behind the amendment. To clarify and reiterate, wherever public money is spent, allocated and appropriated, the Comptroller and Auditor General should have the right to inspect how that money is spent. That is the clear and certain principle.
The Minister, after cutting away the verbiage and the reasons for not doing it now, kept referring to timely and well-timed. We have an opportunity today to do that vital piece of work to close that loophole — something advocated in Sharman. We should look at what Sharman said now that he has reported. However, we were advocating the closure of the loophole in the amendment even before Sharman. I am delighted that Sharman comes down on the side of those of us on the Committee who were arguing for that. I am not surprised, as it is common sense. Why would we not have that sort of accountability and those powers of inspection? But why wait?
Some of the comments made by the Minister today about public and private companies give rise to concerns on my part about what the audit reorganisation Bill may eventually contain if we say that we will not do this today but wait until that Bill is introduced. Private organisations may get cold feet. They may want to tender for Government work, but they will not want people nosing around to see how they spent their money.
We have an opportunity now and we should grasp it, because, after all, this clause deals with inspections. Let us ensure that the power of inspection covers the whole ambit of public money.
The Minister tells us that "substantially" means when a body receives 50% or more of public funds. However, he and his officials know, as does everybody in the House, that if that is not defined in the Bill, then it will not be enshrined in law.
The Minister has still not explained why it is not in the Bill. Therefore, his criticism that "significant" is not defined has no relevance since he has not defined "substantially". It is no good him giving his view if it is not contained in the legislation. It must be in the Bill.

Mr Peter Robinson: What might be substantial to one body might not be substantial to another. Given that parties in the Assembly receive funding from Government sources, the Comptroller and Auditor General might decide that it would be appropriate to find out whether they are spending the money appropriately.
If he sets this term "substantially" beside the political parties, a poor and humble party like ours may find that the money that we receive constitutes the substantial part of the money that we operate on. However, if another party of similar size receives a great deal of money from American donations, bank robberies, drug dealing or whatever, Government funding may not form a substantial part of its money. Therefore, the Comptroller and Auditor General could not look at its accounts.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I thank my hon Friend for his intervention. No doubt the Comptroller and Auditor General will address that example with due care and attention when he comes to examine the parties and their accounts.
I note the Minister’s comment about a reflex reaction as if somehow ours was a hasty decision to move this amendment. As he knows, and as we said at the outset of the Consideration Stage, this has been the subject of in-depth discussion and debate, consideration and scrutiny in the Committee and indeed on the Floor of the House.
Proper care and attention has been given to the issue and it has been debated properly. The matter is before the House, and now is a timely moment to deal with it. Why delay, simply on the ground that the Sharman Report will be looked at in detail, when on this particular point LordSharman comes down fairly clearly on the side of those who support the amendment?

Mr Mark Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Nigel Dodds: It is unusual for a Minister to ask a Member to give way when he has already summed up, but I am more than delighted to do so.

Mr Speaker: The Minister is not summing up on his amendment. He is responding to MrLeslie’s amendment, which was moved what seems rather a long time ago.

Mr Nigel Dodds: This could go on all day.

Mr Speaker: It is entirely open to the Minister to respond in this way and subsequently to MrWeir to make his point.

Mr Mark Durkan: I take the Member’s point that that was considered in the Committee. I remind him that the Committee decided not to pursue an amendment to this effect precisely because it wanted to await the Sharman Report and have fuller consideration. The Committee also served notice that it will bring these points forward in the audit reorganisation Bill.
Notwithstanding the Finance and Personnel Committee’s consideration, the Member should note that these issues have not been considered by other Committees that deal with bodies that might be affected by these provisions. There has been no consultation with any bodies that may be affected.

Mr Peter Weir: The Minister displayed irritation when the definition of "substantially" was raised again. However, on both occasions he failed to answer my question. My question was not about his definition or understanding of "substantially", but about where it is defined in the legislation. I want to be kind to the Minister. It may well be that when Mr Dodds and I examined the legislation, we missed the point where "substantially" is defined. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to answer this question: where in the legislation is the word "substantially" defined?

Mr Mark Durkan: At no point did I say that "substantially" is defined in the legislation. I said that when we used the word "substantial", that is what we take it to mean. It is not a legislative definition. It is a clear reference to instances in which the figure 50% occurs. Obviously — going back to MrRobinson’s point — the Comptroller and Auditor General does not examine something every year. It is in relation to substantial expenditure.
However, if there is any doubt or concern over an issue, we have made it clear that the Department of Finance and Personnel will be influenced by the feelings of the Public Accounts Committee. Therefore, let us be clear about these matters. There is no ambiguity as far as we are concerned. I am not trying to pretend that something is specified in the legislation when it is not. However, at least I can give a clear reference to the figure of 50%, which can be cited as a formal reference from now on. That is not the same with regard to significant funds.

Mr James Leslie: I want to return briefly to amendment 15, which I put to the House some time ago. I thank those Members who supported it, and I thank the Minister for his endorsement of it. I suppose that I could cut and run at this point. However, it would be cowardly if I did not make some remarks about the debate on amendment 17, for I did pose the first question to the Minister on this matter.
The House should be aware that this has been a very thoughtful consideration of important issues of the proper use of public money. Although the debate generated a degree of heat, it has been a worthy exchange. Both this week and last week, the House has debated an extremely significant Bill that will alter our accounting practices and will have considerable implications for the way in which that scrutiny is carried out. While I dare say that it will not receive the attention that it deserves outside these walls, a huge amount of time and effort has gone into the work in the Committees. A great deal of that work has been reflected in the speeches today.
Like Mr Robinson, I think that the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee should be flattered that Lord Sharman and his colleagues were clearly listening in on our deliberations, because several of them appear to have been reflected in their recommendations.
I have taken a quick look at the Sharman Report, as have other Members present, but I must emphasise that it was only a quick look — there has not been enough time to do more. However, during the course of the debate, which has lasted a bit longer than I expected it to, I was able to have a closer look at a section of the report that is highly pertinent to the matter under discussion.
The report recommends that the Comptroller and Auditor General should, for example, be given statutory access to certain organisations, some of which fall under the ambit of our discussion. LordSharman states that that access should be given using the Order-making provision in the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, which was passed at Westminster. I point out to this House that that Order-making provision is contained in clause 19 of our Bill. However, clause 20, which was inserted last week at the behest of the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee, goes further than the recommendation that appears to have been made by Lord Sharman. It gives the Comptroller and Auditor General the right to make an inspection, albeit in defined circumstances. We are arguing about the breadth of those definitions. I submit that they are fairly wide, though they may not be wide enough for Mr Dodds. Nonetheless, I believe that those definitions are fairly wide.
It seems to me that, given the sheer weight of this report and the complexity of some of the matters in it, we have moved the Government Resources and Accounts Bill quite a long way in a short time. We have been required to deal with this Bill quickly because it must receive Royal Assent before the end of the financial year. I consider that we have probably moved this Bill far enough.
Meanwhile, the work is stacking up for the Finance and Personnel Committee in relation to looking at the Sharman Report and, in due course, considering the audit reorganisation Bill when it comes before us in the autumn. I hope that we can get through a few weeks without financial matters or matters of civil law reform coming up, so that the Committee might have an opportunity to attend to those other matters.
Amendment No 15 agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 (Inspections by Comptroller and Auditor General)
Amendment No 16 made: In page 11, line 2, leave out "at any reasonable time". — [Mr Molloy.]
Amendment No 17 proposed: In page 11, line 25, after "nature" insert ", has received significant public funds,". — [Mr Dodds.]
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 32; Noes 52.
Ayes
Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Seamus Close, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, David Ervine, David Ford, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Kieran McCarthy, William McCrea, Monica McWilliams, Maurice Morrow, Sean Neeson, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Sam Foster, Michelle Gildernew, John Gorman, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, David McClarty, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Ken Robinson, George Savage, John Tierney, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 21 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 (Minor and consequential amendments)
Amendment No 18 made: In page 15, line 2, leave out "an Appropriation" and insert "a Budget". — [Mr Durkan.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The Bill now stands referred to the Speaker.

Electoral Fraud

Mr Derek Hussey: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland to report on his plans to counter electoral fraud.
I begin by apologising to you, Mr Speaker, the Business Committee and the Assembly for the withdrawal of this motion from last week’s Order Paper. I was involved in other Assembly business, and I appreciate the Business Committee’s early listing of my resubmitted motion.
Mr Speaker, you and every other Member will be aware of concerns expressed by a wide spectrum of political, public and business opinion throughout Northern Ireland regarding the possibility of irregularities that occurred in various elections in the past. Despite this, and three very important reports, the Government have been all too slow in initiating appropriate action on voting procedures in Northern Ireland to address this issue.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
I recommend that every Member read the excellent report prepared by the Committee of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue on the subject of electoral reform, which was presented on 31 October 1997 — [Interruption].

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that Sinn Féin often likes to complain, but there is a cabal in that corner, making it impossible to hear about electoral fraud. I know that they do not want to hear about these matters, because they orchestrate them, but perhaps they will have the decency to let the Member speak.

Sir John Gorman: This is a good occasion to ask everyone to be peaceful while we discuss this important issue.

Mr Derek Hussey: I was referring to the report of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue, and I suppose that it is appropriate that I did so as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair again today.
One of the most disappointing aspects that emerged from that investigation was the refusal of the then Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland to give evidence to the Forum Committee set up to look at the issue. The same Chief Electoral Officer did, however, give evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs investigation into malpractice on 5 November 1997. I trust that on this occasion, our new Chief Electoral Officer will find it circumspect to respond to this debate. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report into electoral practice in Northern Ireland was published in March 1998, and the then Secretary of State caused the Northern Ireland Office ‘Report of the Elections Review’ to be published in October 1998.
I want to stress that, despite three excellent reports, there has been little worthwhile action from the Government. Members will be well aware of those parts of the electoral process involving registration of voters, publication of registers of voters, application for absent votes and the voting process itself.
In dealing with possible electoral fraud in future elections — be they parliamentary, local government or other — Members will realise that we are stuck with inadequate legislation and time factors preventing change. The motion has been worded with that in mind and, of necessity, calls on the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland to report to the Assembly his plans to counter electoral fraud in legislation.
Democracy is founded on an adherence to the will of the people expressed solely through the ballot box, with no recourse to other means. Each vote is a building block, with the procedures employed for ascertaining the outcome of the votes cast being the cementing agent of one’s chosen form of democracy. It is our duty, and the duty of those placed in positions overseeing our system, to ensure that as little corruption as possible exists if our democratic credentials are to be valid.
I intend to address my concerns about each stage of the electoral process that I have identified, and I am confident that other contributors to the debate will ably and graphically exemplify those concerns as well as raising others.
Many Members are concerned about a system that allows for the multiple registration of voters at unrealistic addresses. Dr Hendron, among others, can testify to examples of this: individual registrations at multiple addresses — quite legal, of course, provided you use your vote only once. There is also the registration of voters who are known to have been living and working in other areas — other jurisdictions even — for many years. There is also the continued registration of those who are deceased.
What liaison is there with the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths to ensure that prompt notification of deaths is recorded so that electoral registers can be updated? What liaison is there with the Planning Service and with local authorities to ensure appropriate occupation levels in small flats, or to identify derelict properties being used as accommodation addresses? Given today’s technology, are these questions unreasonable?
This is not to deny that voting in more than one place is wrong, even for those with a legitimate reason for being registered in more than one place. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report says
"an accurate register is vital".
I am certain that many Members have been contacted by constituents about people whose names do not appear on the electoral register. Indeed, they may have identified such people themselves. Such non-registration of those entitled to vote must be proactively addressed by the Chief Electoral Officer. It should be his duty to ensure that all who are entitled to vote be included on the electoral register.
Postal and proxy voting can lend itself to abuse. Although we all recognise that there are people who have a genuine need to avail of absent voting arrangements, proper safeguards must be in place to prevent abuse. Earlier closing dates for absent voter applications would assist officials to make the necessary checks as well as providing them with time for the performance of spot check visits to applicants to assist in the validation of applications. Indeed, I welcome moves that have been brought to the fore on this aspect. In a letter dated 10 January 2000, the Northern Ireland Office Elections Unit states
"as a consequence of work undertaken by the review, legislation was introduced to help tackle the issue of absent vote abuse. The legislation now provides for an increase in the time available to the Chief Electoral Officer to scrutinise absent vote applications".
If the Chief Electoral Officer decides to report to the Assembly, perhaps we should ask him whether he has been given sufficient time.
The application form should be adapted to include additional information, such as an applicant’s date of birth or National Insurance number, which would aid the checking procedure. Properly located, fully accessible polling stations would encourage many to vote in person, rather than seek an absent vote. Checking procedures should be locally based, thus allowing local knowledge to be utilised. The availability of access to the marked register after elections enables those who would seek to abuse the electoral system to identify persistent non-voters, whom they can then target for absent vote applications.
The means of identification to be shown by voters must be seriously reconsidered. The medical card, in particular, has been highlighted as unsatisfactory. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report states
"The medical card is not a sufficiently protected document to provide safe identification and it should no longer be included in the list of accepted identifiers for polling purposes."
Accounts of the organised mass forgery of medical cards will no doubt emerge as the debate develops.
Mr Attwood is not here. If he were, I suspect that he would have a tale or two to relate to the Assembly. His evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, on behalf of the SDLP in 1998, was very informative. Non-photographic means of identification are inappropriate, and the issue of voting identity cards should be revisited. Some years ago, a commitment to this issue was given by Her Majesty’s Government when George Howarth assured Mr William Thompson, MP for West Tyrone, that the matter of identification would be addressed.
In addition, I received a letter from the Northern Ireland Office Elections Unit in January. It states:
"The Government takes the issue of electoral abuse very seriously and is committed to ensuring that the people of Northern Ireland have an electoral system in which they have confidence. It was following allegations of electoral abuse in 1997 that the then Secretary of State established a wide-ranging review of electoral practice in Northern Ireland to formulate proposals to improve the integrity of the electoral process."
That dates back to 1997. Why are we still waiting for procedures to be corrected? There is a commitment that a card will be introduced, which will necessitate, among other things, the introduction of registration on an individual basis rather than household registration. Not only will these changes require primary legislation, but it is important that the development of specialised computer technology be carefully evaluated before final decisions are reached. I ask again: how long do we have to wait?
Procedures for challenge in cases of personation need to be enhanced. Is there not cause for concern, and indeed outrage, when one considers the remarks made by a presiding officer when giving evidence to the Forum Committee?
"In my position I could personally identify voters impersonating using allowance books et cetera, but needless to say, it is not my duty as presiding officer to refuse."
After the most recent local government elections, I received a telephone call from a policeman. He had to watch individuals enter polling stations four or five times, obviously using different medical cards, without challenge. He also encountered individuals who had discovered that their votes had already been claimed. People were stealing votes. The issue of electoral fraud must be faced up to. The consequences can, and do, corrupt election results.
Dr McCrea will relate to this issue, given his experiences in Mid Ulster. The recent by-elections at council level have meant that the RUC can confirm that it is investigating allegations of electoral fraud following the election in Antrim north-west.
The Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the SDLP, Alliance and others have all cried foul at some stage after elections. Sinn Féin has accused those concerned about electoral fraud of whingeing. That surely shows that it would claim to have nothing to fear from proper scrutiny of the electoral process.
I realise that the Chief Electoral Officer will need appropriate resources, finance, staff, equipment et cetera to deal with the concerns that arise today, and I hope that any report produced will include an assessment of such need. Whatever the cost, each elector must have confidence that his or her vote is equal to, and as valid as, any other vote cast.
I am aware that others wish to speak. In closing, I repeat words that I used when addressing a similar motion in the Northern Ireland Forum in June 1997:
"the purpose of this motion is not to disenfranchise anyone but to ensure that those entitled to vote — and I stress the word ‘entitled’ — can do so."
— and do so with integrity.
I regret that the issue has yet to be fully resolved, and I trust that it will be.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I beg to move the following amendment: after "report" insert
"on the efficiency of the registration process and the balloting process and".
My reason for tabling the amendment is not in any way to detract from the original motion’s purpose. However, I feared it would focus on only one aspect of the electoral process. If the Chief Electoral Officer is to be asked to report on the electoral process, he should report on the entire process.
I have also moved the amendment because, from my point of view, the purpose of an electoral process is to ensure that every individual who has the right to vote is enabled, facilitated and encouraged to vote. Electoral fraud needs to be addressed. Sinn Féin has nothing to fear from scrutiny of the electoral system or from its being made more efficient. If measures are introduced to modify the electoral system, time will tell how that affects Sinn Féin’s share of the vote.
In moving the motion, Mr Hussey covered the other aspects of the electoral process, particularly registration. He said that the electoral register is vital. I agree that a complete electoral register is vital. If a person is not on the electoral register, that person will not have the right to vote on polling day.
I have experience of seeing people arrive at a polling station on the day of an election only to discover that they are not on the electoral register. Members have to consider votes quite often, but many ordinary people only think of the election on the day of an election.
They have not been registered for various reasons. Many people would claim that they never received forms through their doors. That may be because the electoral registration form is a small piece of paper and because many of our letter boxes are full of envelopes and junk mail, the electoral form is often mislaid. Occasionally people complete the forms but miss the collection; perhaps because no one called to collect them or because they could not find the forms when the collectors called. If people are not registered during the registration process in August and September, the vast majority of them will not appear on the register at all and will not be able to vote.
One suggestion is that, during the registration process, the Chief Electoral Officer should be given the finances and resources to mount a publicity campaign alerting the public that the registration process is ongoing and advising them of the documents required when casting a vote.
For one reason or another, many people who are registered to vote will turn up at a polling station without the required identification. Perhaps their driving licences or passports have expired, or perhaps they never had any. Their identification may have been mislaid or they might have left the documents somewhere else on the day. Many people do not think about an election until election day.
Age Concern and the Royal National Institute for the Blind made submissions to the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs on electoral law and administration, pointing out the difficulties the elderly face when registering. That issue should be addressed. The elderly, because they are not knowledgeable about the registration process, are reluctant to fill in forms.
Suggestions have been made to the effect that more information should be required at registration stage so that some form of identification card can be produced for the purposes of voting. That would be useful if it led to a reduction in electoral fraud, if not to its prevention. However, if acquiring that form becomes a difficult and complicated process for people with poor sight, the elderly, or those with reading difficulties, they will not have open and easy access to registration.
Vocal and public allegations of election fraud have been made against Sinn Féin. As MrHussey stated, several reports have been compiled as a result of those allegations. In the Second Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs 1998 on the electoral process, the Northern Ireland Office commented that there was a disappointing amount of evidence of vote stealing. It also stated that very little material had been submitted to the review carried out on electoral fraud.
I went to refer to some comments from the RUC in that report. It is not usual for me to depend on information supplied by the RUC.

Mr David Ervine: Collusion.

Mr Pat McNamee: Yes, collusion. The RUC said that there was evidence of abuses of the absent system of postal and proxy votes. The Chief Electoral Officer referred that abuse to the RUC, who examined a sample of votes and discovered that 20% of those absent votes that were suspected of being fraudulent were, in fact, genuine.
They made no attempt to quantify the extent of absent or proxy voting. More significantly, they did not reach any conclusion about any one party’s being involved in electoral fraud through absent voting. I refer to other bodies that have contributed to reports on the electoral process and to their determination on which party or parties were involved in electoral fraud.
We all know that parties can appoint polling agents at a polling station to bring instances of personation to the attention of the electoral officers and to call on the RUC to make an arrest if that is appropriate. The RUC has said that there was very little evidence of polling agents informing the electoral officers to enable them to investigate — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Pat McNamee: If any Members wish to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that they have time to put their names down.
The RUC said that there was very little evidence of its being called upon to deal with personation. We have many vocal, public allegations of electoral fraud, but very little substance behind them, in spite of the reports and the reviews.
I want to discuss comments made by the Chief Electoral Officer in his submission in the report of the electoral review of 1998. He said that, while there were some indications of abuse of postal and proxy votes, he was provided with little evidence to enable him to investigate it. In particular, he said, his attention was drawn to a media report by the SDLP. The SDLP had stated that personation was widespread in the West Belfast constituency. However, despite repeated public assurances from the Chief Electoral Officer that he would initiate a full inquiry on the production of any evidence, he received nothing to substantiate the claims.
As I have said, we have many vocal, public allegations about electoral fraud and about who is responsible, but little of substance to provide evidence for a proper inquiry, investigation or prosecution.

A Member: Intimidation.

Mr Pat McNamee: It would be very surprising if all those who have contributed to these reviews have been intimidated. Several academics were asked to examine the review of the electoral process in the North of Ireland, with particular regard to allegations of electoral fraud, and to give their findings. The academics agreed that both the SDLP and the UUP were most vocal in attacking Sinn Féin and in attributing its successes almost entirely to the abuse of the electoral system. David Trimble, in ‘The Irish Times’ and the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ on 24 May 1997 said that Sinn Féin had been guilty of massive electoral abuse. However, the academics who responded to the review suggested that the abuse that does occur is not confined to one party or to one half of the political and religious divide.
Prof Brendan O’Leary of the London School of Economics stated that, although he is doubtful that abuse occurs on a large scale, confidential interviews carried out by him with people from all parties — except the Alliance Party and the DUP, which I assume chose not to have a confidential interview — led him to the conclusion that abuse is perpetrated on behalf of all the parties.

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Progressive Unionist Party’s name may well be absent from whatever report the Member is reading from, for we never, ever, spoke to Prof O’Leary on this subject.

Mr Pat McNamee: Although I cannot confirm whether that is the case, I accept the Member’s point. The name of the Member’s party is not specifically referred to in the report. It does, however, refer to all parties with the exception of the Alliance Party and the DUP, and I was quoting from the document published by the Northern Ireland Office, but I accept the Member’s clarification.
Furthermore, there is general agreement expressed by those academics, which includes others from the University of Ulster and Queen’s University, Belfast, that the recent electoral successes of Sinn Féin — referring, in particular, to the elections of 1997 — are consistent with the political climate and our previous electoral performance.

Ms Jane Morrice: Mr McNamee, I must ask you to draw your remarks to a close.

Mr Pat McNamee: I will try to sum up, Madam Deputy Speaker. They also conclude that Nationalist voters had realised that strengthening Sinn Féin’s electoral mandate was far more likely to deliver peace than prolong violence. The report went further: it said that Sinn Féin’s adroit campaigning on bread-and-butter issues and the strength of our party organisation had been cited as ways in which Sinn Féin had legitimately consolidated its core vote. Those are the views of the academics that contributed to the review of electoral fraud in the North following allegations, which were not substantiated and for which no evidence was provided, and the view was formed independently. Indeed, they concluded by saying that it raised the question of whether there were any ceiling to the rise in Sinn Féin’s vote. I ask the Assembly to support the amendment to the motion in order that the Chief Electoral Officer will be required to give a report on the entire process, not only to deal with the question of electoral fraud, if and when it occurs, but also to facilitate and encourage everyone who has the right to vote to do so. Go raibh maith agat.

Ms Jane Morrice: Given the large number of Members who have asked to speak in this debate and the time allocated for it, I must ask Members to limit their contributions to less than five minutes. I will give notice 10 seconds before the five-minute point.

Dr Joe Hendron: Recently, a friend of mine from County Antrim told me that his great-great-great-grandfather was a sheep stealer. However, he admitted to me that there is one thing that is much worse than sheep stealing, and that is vote stealing.
I congratulate Mr Hussey for bringing this motion before the Assembly. He mentioned 1997, but this problem has been around for much longer than that. This is not meant as criticism — it is merely a fact — but it is only in recent years that the main Unionist parties have been concerned about this problem, and for very obvious reasons. However, it has been around for a long time.
I first came into this Chamber in 1975 — that is over 25 years ago — and certainly for 20 of those 25 years, I felt that I was not quite John the Baptist, but a lone voice in this fight against electoral fraud. If you go back to 1977, 1978 or 1979, before the birth of the present Sinn Féin party, electoral fraud was taking place then. I can well recall that people came down the roads in cars; they came on bicycles; they even came in prams — well, perhaps not prams — but they came in all sorts of vehicles. They were almost like the Scarlet Pimpernel — here, there and everywhere. There was nothing anyone could do about it. People were changing skirts and trousers and putting on wigs outside. It was on a big scale.
That said, although it was very obvious that it was being done, it was not done on a professional scale. Years later, of course, it became very professional, and in recent years it has been so.
I move on to the question of identification, medical cards, social security cards, passports and so on. The medical card identification is a sick joke. Can you imagine trying to get a loan or social security benefit by showing your medical card as proof of identity?
When Tom King was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my colleague John Hume and I went to see him. We presented direct evidence of electoral fraud. Mr McNamee talked about evidence — forged medical cards were produced. I produced them myself. Medical cards are something that I do know something about. Unless you were familiar with them, you would not recognise them as being forged. My party has raised the issue with every Secretary of State since then — Jim Prior, Paddy Mayhew, Mo Mowlam.
In case anyone thinks that this is sour grapes on my part, it did not, in any way, affect my electoral fortunes at the House of Commons. I stood for the West Belfast seat in Westminster four times, and was elected at the third attempt. Electoral fraud can affect candidates at Assembly level and, perhaps more importantly, at local government level. It takes only a few hundred votes either way to change a result.
A colleague of mine put down a motion in the House of Commons relating to the Chief Electoral Officer. The problem was that there was not a Minister to reply — well, a Minister did reply, but he made it clear that he did not have the authority to do so. The reason given was that the Chief Electoral Officer answered to Parliament.
However, Secretaries of State do have certain powers. Unfortunately, in recent years they have been slow to use them. Young people have boasted of voting 25 and 30 times. It was an easy thing to do. Medical cards were handed out in tally-rooms, and they were easy to produce. The doctor’s name was stamped on it. Every doctor has his own code number, and even that could be stamped on the card. All that had to be done was to ring the Central Services Agency and ask for the doctor’s list for a particular area, and it would be given to you along with the code numbers.
I am aware of the time factor. Let me just say that identification is a sick joke that has been raised many times. Some sort of card that has a photograph on it, for example, a smart card that has the latest computer technology, is the only way that the public in Northern Ireland can have confidence in the voting system.

Rev William McCrea: I listened with interest to Mr Hussey, and I congratulate him on bringing this matter before the House, as he did before the Forum.
I also listened — and I could not believe what I was hearing — to the brass neck and brazen gall of Sinn Féin. According to them, there is no problem. They even quoted the Royal Ulster Constabulary as their source of information on the lack of fraud in the voting process, yet they know full well that not only does it go on, but it goes on in a very clearly systematic and professional way.
Go to Ardboe at election time. They can be seen taking the medical cards out of the boot of the car and handing them to people. It is done openly, because they have nothing to fear.
They say that no one has come forward to substantiate those claims. However, that may just have something to do with a person calling with a gun at night or with a hood over his head, to tell you that if you make that complaint you will get kneecapped or you may get shot. That would not alarm some Members on the opposite side of the House because it would be second nature to them, considering the political ideology of their party. Let us make no mistake about it; this has been going on, and it is a very serious matter. Some may regard it as something to laugh about, but vote-stealing is not a joke; robbing people of their right to register their vote is not a joke. Many people have gone to polling stations only to find that their votes were already taken.
I can understand people saying that, in a Westminster election, it may not always mean the difference between being elected and not being elected. However, the first time I was elected in Mid Ulster, I won by a majority of 78 votes. That was the figure declared. However, if you take into account the fraudulent votes of the next person in line that majority could have been 2078.
Sinn Féin/IRA are the political masters of vote-stealing. They do it without any embarrassment, yet they know it is true. In local government, 0·5% of the vote can take a seat away from a person — 0·2% of the vote has taken seats away from people. This issue really does matter, and we are looking at a situation in local government, and in Assembly elections, which has relevance.
Who would want to hold a seat, knowing that they had won it fraudulently? Only a person with a background of terrorism would try to defend such a situation or want to hold a seat won in such a way. No one with any morality or credibility would want to be in that position.
The British Government must take some responsibility because there was the Forum report. Mo Mowlam promised that action would be taken. She said that she could not take action in time for the Assembly elections but that it would be taken before the next Westminster election and before the local government election.
However, Mo Mowlam has gone; Mandelson has gone; another Secretary of State has come, and still, no action has been taken to stop those who are robbing people of their right to vote. In west Belfast, we found that six people were claiming to be tenants of a one-bedroomed flat. When investigations were complete, there was no one there, despite the fact that six people were registered to vote.
That shows the brass neck of a political party that calls itself democratic. It is a stranger to democracy; it has robbed seats from the SDLP and others, and that is not the way that a democratic system should proceed. The motion demands that action be taken, and that a democracy should be allowed to decide who is elected to Westminster, the Assembly and councils.

Mr Sean Neeson: I regret that the debate is necessary. I was the chairperson for the Forum committee on electoral fraud. That committee took representations from a broad cross-section of society in Northern Ireland and it was clear that electoral fraud was very widespread.
Despite the Forum report, and that from the Select Committee at Westminster, Governments have not responded to the Northern Ireland political parties’ concerns about electoral fraud. There is nothing more despicable in a democracy than vote-stealing. People have laid down their lives in order that others could have the right to vote and there is nothing more precious than that right in a democratic society.
I am now more than ever convinced of the principle of "no vote, no photo; no photo, no vote", particularly considering the proceedings of the Forum committee. It is clear that the documentation used in the past for identification has been abused — none more so than medical cards.
I am also concerned about the whole question of postal and proxy votes. These have been widely abused, particularly in the west of the Province. When I look at some of the constituencies in the west of the Province and compare them with those in the east, I notice a marked difference, which is not down to the weather or the climate. There is something radically wrong when there is such a difference in the applications for postal votes.

Mr John Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sean Neeson: No, I do not have enough time.
I was very struck by the evidence given by the former Chief Electoral Officer, Mr Bradley, to the Select Committee. He said that when he looked at the applications for postal votes, two thirds of them were marked red — they were discounted and disqualified. That clearly shows the enormity of the abuse of the postal vote system. Rather than having these votes checked centrally, I ask the Government to consider having them checked at local level, where people know the individuals making the applications. Photographic identification should be produced before a ballot paper is handed over.
Several important elements must be considered with regard to registration. It should be necessary for people to provide their signatures — they should be made available to the presiding officer in a polling station. There is also a need to make the polling stations user-friendly, particularly for those with disabilities. That was one major issue that came before the committee in the Forum.
The amendment does not add or take away from the original motion. The important thing is that Government grasp this major problem. As Dr Hendron said, it is nothing new. We know the old adage "Vote early, vote often". Northern Ireland is the only place where the dead walk the streets on election day. These abuses must come to an end if we are to create a society in which it is politics that dominates. This debate has come at a worthwhile time — regrettably too late for the two forthcoming elections — and I congratulate Mr Hussey for raising the issue.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is it in order for a Member to slate a whole society of people west of the Bann by implying that they engage in massive electoral fraud?

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a point of order. I call Mr Ervine.

Mr David Ervine: Yesterday some Members suggested that we spend too long in plenary session. We are now told that we have five minutes to deal with an issue of great significance. This seems ridiculous to me. That is not your fault, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is something that the Business Committee must give some serious consideration to.
I know that Sinn Féin has never been involved in electoral fraud because Mitchell McLaughlin said so — much as he said he does not know any IRA men in Derry. Of course it has been involved in electoral fraud, but it has not been alone. The Ulster Unionist Party used to make it its forte many years ago. For those who do not want to believe that, let us look at one possibility. If a councillor would take key money off a tenant, would he take a vote off someone it did not belong to? Of course he would.
There has been corruption in the system for years and years. That is why we will be supporting the amendment. It adds to the dealing with electoral fraud, the dealing with the patheticism of having people tell you the difficulties they have when they go to get their vote. They find that are not registered, and they cannot understand why.
It also deals with the methodology of identification. I have watched people arrive with "sea" books — which are very definitive and have photographs — and being refused their vote. Benefit books, which have no means of identifying their owners, are acceptable. It might be somebody else’s benefit book. It might be somebody else’s medical card. We have trundled on through the years with this pathetic system. Every now and again, we jump up and shout about it. Of course, that happens about two or threemonths before an election.
What is wrong with teaching children at 15, 16, 17, or perhaps when they are about to leave school, what they can expect in the electoral system and how they can become part of the electoral system? Have we thought of doing that? I do not think so. Have we thought of having outreach to the elderly or the infirm? Have we thought about the value of the vote? We hear plenty of lip-service paid to the value of the vote. However, its value is measured by the cost of running an election.
If, of course, you do not believe that the protection of democracy is worth spending the money on, then we should not be having this debate. Something definitive needs to be done that deals not only with fraud but also with getting people easily and properly registered.
Indeed, we may have to go as far as introducing a system such as the one in Australia, where it is against the law not to vote. Many Western democracies find themselves electing people with a minority of the population voting; people who lecture about the political efficacy they have because they have the majority of a minority.
If we are genuine about refining our democracy, about refining how the population elects its representatives, then let us not play games with it. There should be some form of electronic mechanism and an abandonment of those things that are not definitive to the person.
There should be some formula or system in place — and paid for — which ensures that all votes are properly regulated. For too long we have heard the complaints. If the Shinners were to admit at all that they were involved in electoral fraud they might tell you that what they simply did was rehash and revamp an old system. It is true. The system is ripe for abuse. Therefore, tragically, there will be those who see a prize big enough that they will abuse it.
I support the amendment. However, it should not detract from the wisdom of the Member who moved the motion.

Mrs Joan Carson: I welcome the opportunity to debate this motion. As a representative of Fermanagh and South Tyrone — a constituency that must be in the Guinness Book of Records as having the greatest number of elections of any UK constituency — I know all about the abuse of the electoral system.
In the days before identification methods, we had buses stopping outside polling stations, people being handed slips of paper and directed to vote. We had large caravans filled with items of clothing, wigs, shoes, spectacles, all to facilitate voting fraud. We even had "rent-a-child" with a baby being pushed around giving an impostor the air of legitimacy.
With the introduction of identification methods, we hoped that this blatant fraud would end, but it did not. There has been review after review, but nothing has been done.
The previous Chief Electoral Officer gave evidence in Westminster on his concerns about electoral fraud. He stated that the amount of organised personation that he saw was so great that he went to the Secretary of State. The Chief Electoral Officer realised that identification documents were needed, but was unable to influence those who saw no need to take drastic action.
Eventually, in 1997, a review was instigated by the Secretary of State of the time, MoMowlam. The review concluded with the launch of the ‘Vote Early, Vote Fairly’ document. That document contained many recommendations that could have increased the public’s confidence in the electoral process. After three years, it has still not been implemented. The present Chief Electoral Officer is in a prime position to tell us whether any changes have been implemented and what information can be brought into the public domain.
The main recommendation in the Mowlam report was that voters should have an identity card. I would welcome the introduction of such a card as a positive move to reduce personation at elections. Members have already mentioned medical cards and allowance books; the use of those documents should end immediately, for they are poor means of identification. There are abundant accounts of young people allegedly claiming a vote with a pension book.
In its submission to the Mowlam review, Sinn Féin advocated the removal of all identification documents. That would be a ludicrous state of affairs, once again leaving the system open to abuse — back to busing and caravans full of clothing. There is also serious concern about malpractice in postal voting, which deserves attention. One of the recommendations in the Mowlam report was the placing of watermarks on forms; perhaps that would be a positive step.
The present system is still open to abuse. We can have no confidence that our votes will not be rendered void by electoral malpractice. This is a reserved matter, and I hope that the Prime Minister will take our debate today on board. Perhaps he will implement some change — not for this election, perhaps, but soon. We cannot continue to put things on the long finger and do nothing.

Mr P J Bradley: I thank Mr Hussey for bringing the motion to the Assembly, although I should also state that there is nothing in the amendment that I oppose.
I oppose electoral abuse, whether it be vote-stealing or building up a party’s strength by any other kind of electoral fraud. My concerns were such that I made them known to the Government about 12 months ago. I received a written reply from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr George Howarth MP. He stated:
"The Government is committed to bringing forward legislation to counter electoral abuse in the near future and before the next general election".
He qualified that by adding,
"if that is at all possible."
He also said:
"The legislation will be aimed at tackling abuse of the absent voting procedure, both postal and proxy, but will also take steps to ensure that as much as is possible is being done to prevent personation."
I also referred to the use of medical cards for identification purposes. Mr Howarth said:
"I am aware of the concerns about the use of medical cards as an approved means of identification at polling stations, but for the present there is no means of withdrawing this card without putting a large number of the electorate to some inconvenience."
He concluded:
"Before introducing the Bill, the Government will be consulting the parties about the proposals so that they can move ahead with broad agreement among parties in Northern Ireland."
I agree with Mr Hussey that the Government have trailed their feet and have been very slow.
I want to put on record my condemnation of a practice that has been brought to my attention. It is one which, I regret to say, I am unable to do anything about, and so far it has not been touched on in today’s debate. After the Assembly elections, my attention was drawn to the practice of intimidatory gangs following postmen on the morning that the postal votes were being delivered and moving in immediately to confiscate them. They confiscated the unopened package from the recipient to use for their own political gain. That is all the more annoying when often the recipient did not apply for the vote in the first place and was not even aware of it until it had arrived and was taken from him or her 10 seconds later.
That practice is mainly inflicted on the most vulnerable people in society, namely the elderly and those living alone. I appeal to the family members of those who apply for a postal or proxy vote to make an effort to be present when the postal vote is being delivered, because their presence just might deter those paramilitary-type groups from stealing those votes.
I said earlier that I regretted that I was unable to do anything about that activity because the victims are terrified of the intruders and are afraid of retaliation if they pursue the matter or have it pursued on their behalf. I hope that a system will be devised to do away with this most cowardly of all electoral abuse practices. I thank Mr Hussey for bringing the motion forward.

Mr Peter Robinson: During the course of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue debate on this subject, my party tabled an amendment and we welded the two together and had an agreed motion. This was followed by lengthy sessions when a committee scrutinised the matter and prepared a report which went to the then Secretary of State.
As a member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, I brought this issue to the attention of the Committee, and it too heard evidence sessions and issued a report. Once again a report was submitted to the Secretary of State. During the period when Marjorie Mowlam was Secretary of State, there was, perhaps deliberately, an attempt to long-finger this issue.
I detected greater urgency during Peter Mandelson’s time as Secretary of State, and, indeed, I am sure other political parties had meetings with the under-Secretary of State, George Howarth, on this subject and are aware of the nature of the proposals that he is considering introducing. Those will be welcome in dealing — much more effectively than the existing regulations and legislation do — with those who deliberately, and in an organised way, seek to subvert the democratic process.
This is a significant matter. It is not about somebody playfully stealing a vote or two; it is not about somebody getting one over on the presiding officer in a polling station or about voting for poor Johnny, who is unable to go out himself because he is ill or away on business elsewhere. It is about the organised and almost military use of an organisation to ensure that the outcome of an election is subverted, and they have succeeded in doing that on a number of occasions in local government by-elections.
I believe, without the slightest doubt, that the Mid Ulster Westminster seat was won by the present non-oath-taking Member for that area from my Colleague. The Electoral Office showed us the number of fraudulent postal votes that went through in that area, and it was greater than the majority that Mr McGuinness had over my Colleague.
When a television profile was done of one of Mr McGuinness’s close confidants at that time — who has since fallen out with him — it was interesting to hear him admit the extent of the electoral abuse that took place in that constituency; one woman voted over 30 times during that election. We are told that there is no evidence — evidence such as the BBC’s ‘Spotlight’ programme was able to produce of six people claiming to be tenants in a one-bedroom flat — six people in a one-bedroom flat.
Five people were registered as being resident in another one-bedroom flat, and they could not be traced. Six people were registered as sharing yet another one-bedroom flat, but three of them could not be found. Two of five people registered in another flat were also registered at another address in the same constituency and at two other addresses in a different constituency. According to that evidence, the SDLP challenged 200 entries on the West Belfast register, with the result that 102 names were removed.
Attempts at electoral fraud were clearly made in that constituency, and there are countless examples of it. There is evidence that some people were engaged in the printing and writing of names on medical cards. The police raided their centre, but those involved burned the remnants of the medical cards in the fireplace as they tried to hold the police off. A great deal of evidence has been gathered on that sort of activity over the years.
Many people have approached Members about electoral fraud because they are afraid to come out publicly and give evidence on it. They know that the fellow travellers and henchmen of Sinn Féin/IRA would do great damage to them if they gave evidence. Members need not get carried away with the nonsense that there was very little evidence that electoral fraud took place. There was plenty of evidence, and everybody knew that in their hearts. The intelligent view of the Electoral Office was that this was only the tip of the iceberg and much more was happening about which people did not have the full details.

Ms Jane Morrice: Mr Robinson, your time is up.

Mr Peter Robinson: This is a major issue that must be dealt with. The sooner it is tackled, the sooner there will be fair elections in Northern Ireland, with the people who win elections ending up in the elected Chamber rather than those who steal the people’s votes.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the amendment and trust that the efficiency of the registration and balloting processes will benefit from the debate. It is high time that the veil of secrecy surrounding the electoral process was lifted. Why should Members be furtive about information?
Most Members would welcome the proposal if Mr Hussey, who moved the motion, was sincere and was seeking a change in the electoral system that would make it more open and accountable. However, I suspect that the motion is another attempt by Unionists to engage in the usual Sinn Féin-bashing. It has almost become custom and practice in the Assembly for both Unionist groups to use motions for no purpose other than to attack Sinn Féin, and I am sure that they have dug deep for this one. However, as my Colleague Mr McNamee has stated, the evidence to sustain allegations of electoral fraud is very thin despite Unionists’ continuing assertions.
Given its history, the Ulster Unionist Party should be the last party to raise the issue of electoral fraud. However, I welcome its new-found conversion to the democratic process of openness, equality and the principle of one vote per person. Electoral malpractice or the culture of electoral fraud was patented by the Ulster Unionist Party and copied by others long before Sinn Féin ever became involved in contemporary electoral politics.
The most undemocratic electoral fraud ever perpetrated on any people or nation was inflicted on the people of Ireland by the refusal of Unionists and the British to recognise the democratic mandate given by the people to Sinn Féin in the 1918 General Election. That fraud has since been reinforced by the partition of this island under a threat of violence and war. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Ms Mary Nelis: Every election conducted under the Unionist regime since the inception of the state was an exercise in electoral fraud. Election day in Unionist- speak was known as "resurrection day" — that was the day when even the dead voted. Derek Hussey speaks of no recourse to other means. Not content with the votes registered by the dear departed, the Unionist regime at Stormont passed laws that restricted voting rights to property owners or tenants with statutory rights. Such restrictions meant that Catholics were disenfranchised, while those registered as multiple property owners had multiple votes.
In addition, to ensure that the Unionists would retain power there was the additional security — [Interruption].

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mary Nelis: No.
There was the additional security of the company vote. In my home city of Derry, electoral fraud was practised through the process of gerrymandering. Two thirds of the Catholic majority were herded into one ward to ensure that the control of local government remained in the hands of Unionists. The real fraud was the malpractice, discrimination and denial of the democratic right to vote for the majority of Catholics for 50years.
Unionists should acknowledge that the culture of electoral fraud was introduced to keep them in power. The honourable tradition of voting early and voting often, as so often quoted by their political spokespersons — not to mention Reverends and Grand Masters — is gone for ever, like the missing ballot boxes, never to return.
There is little or no evidence to support the allegations of electoral fraud. There is, however, plenty of evidence available of the intimidation, the harassment and arrest of SinnFéin voters and election agents and the murder of Sinn Féin workers. Sinn Féin has nothing to fear from the reform of the electoral system — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Ms Mary Nelis: MrHussey raised concerns about electoral fraud and, indeed, he should be concerned. After all, the honourable Unionist tradition of vote rigging might come into play in the polling stations and Orange halls — certainly not a neutral venue — and it might cost him a seat at Westminster. I support the amendment.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity that my Colleague Derek Hussey has provided to the Assembly. I am somewhat nonplussed at having to speak after the previous Member. The honourable Lady gave us a hysterical analysis, but it certainly was not historical. It was the usual Republican rant, which the House is now used to hearing from the Member. It has no basis in history at all, and the real tragedy is that she actually believes it.
Historically, electoral fraud has been rife in my constituency of Newry and Armagh. In recent years Republicans in South Armagh have been actively engaged in elections instead of ignoring them, and they have been using fraudulent methods to enhance their electoral performance. There is an argument that that is all part of the culture; that, in a misty-eyed way, voting early and voting often should be acceptable.
Electoral fraud has no place, and must have no place, in any democratic country. We have to be absolutely clear on that. These are not just isolated incidents of people dressing up, altering their appearance, or creeping round graveyards compiling lists of the recently dead. It is much more serious than that. There is systematic operation of fraud and the clear evidence continues to grow. It starts with registration and it continues on polling day.
I am aware that, even now, multiple applications are made on registration forms in Republican areas for family members who have long since left home and who are working in other parts of Ireland or the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, they are registered for electoral purposes in my constituency, and come election day an application will be filed for a postal vote or a proxy vote to enable that vote to count. That is simply unacceptable. As far as the mover of the amendment is concerned, methinks he doth protest too much.
There are many problems in registration. There is clear evidence of the misuse of medical cards. The system is open to abuse. Anomalies exist that allow an incomplete or out-of-date driving licence, including a photograph, to be rejected in favour of a medical card or an unemployment benefit book with no photograph that will be accepted without hesitation.
I have personal experience, from living and working in south Armagh, of presiding officers, poll clerks and election officials, working on election days, being clearly aware of electoral malpractice, but who could not and would not raise any objection out of fear for their personal safety. That is unacceptable, and I therefore fully support this call by my Colleague Derek Hussey.
There is a need to put uniform registration methods into place. I am concerned that there is a gap in the legislation when it comes to registering residents of nursing and old people’s homes and ensuring that people who are lawfully competent get every opportunity to exercise their franchise. I join with my Colleague, and others, in calling for the introduction of an identity card, including a photograph, for electoral purposes.

Mr Jim Shannon: I thank Mr Hussey for raising this matter. It is opportune, and certainly an issue of great importance to many of us in this Chamber. The electoral system is the key to a democratic society. Run correctly, democracy will thrive; run incorrectly, democracy will fail — as it has failed in this Province. Electoral fraud has led to the corruption of democracy.
With the Westminster election and the local government election fast approaching, reform of the local electoral system will require debate and discussion. We can do that today, with a view to addressing the problem of electoral fraud. The legislation relating to elections must be tightened up if we are to combat electoral abuse successfully. The very existence and frequency of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland is well documented. It is accepted by the Chief Electoral Officer. William McCrea and Peter Robinson have already given some examples of it.
There is absolutely no doubt that Republicans especially have been involved in corrupting the electoral process — adopting a "vote early, vote often" attitude. There have been major problems with electoral fraud in the past, especially involving personation, postal votes and the use of fake medical cards. Republicans have used the Ecstasy tablet of vote rigging to increase their vote. We should perhaps put on record that if the electoral system were to be changed, the vote that IRA/ Sinn Féin has could be diminished and be put into perspective. We hope that that will be done.
It is essential that the integrity of the electoral process be maintained and that those who abuse the system be restricted from using it. Voting should always reinforce the democratic system — not distort and corrupt it. That is why the only solution is to introduce measures that will stamp out electoral fraud and therefore ensure that democracy is the winner.
At present, absent voting is one of the most abused areas of the voting system. The problem is more acute in areas of personation or the production of fraudulent identification documents. To tighten up on absent voting, legislation has been introduced to extend the period in which the Chief Electoral Officer can examine applications before the relevant forms are dispatched. That is a positive step, but no one can say that it is radical.
There has been a proposal — unfortunately, it has yet to be implemented — which suggests the establishment of dedicated investigative teams to scrutinise all applications at all stages. For example, if a name appears more than once but is registered at a different address it must be investigated.
The use of addresses of houses that are derelict or have not been lived in for some time has become common practice among those abusing the system to secure an extra vote. Some of us are aware of instances in which people have been registered to vote at addresses where the doors, the windows and even the chimneys are blocked up. There is no way in which anybody could get in or out of them; the only ones who could vote from those houses would be the mice. Whether or not they are registered, one can only guess.
I find it incredible that people have been able to abuse this system for so long. It is very important that those who have the right to vote are protected, while those who abuse the system are prevented from doing so any longer.
I want to highlight a couple of issues about appropriate identification at polling stations. What about the production of a firearms certificate? It is not a legitimate means of identification, but it could be — not the firearms, just the certificate. Some people can probably produce many firearms, though whether that is before or after decommissioning I cannot say.
A driver’s licence with a photograph on it is another example, but at the moment you must have other forms as well. I would have thought it ample to present a driver’s licence with the photo card. It is important that it is the individual who is registered as opposed to his home. The registration of a voter must be checked and double-checked — as it should be with any system — and it would be a way of identifying the issues and providing stronger powers for presiding officers.
Electoral staff have also suffered intimidation. For example, staff were intimidated when a polling station was petrol-bombed at Shantallow in Londonderry. One Member spoke earlier of a complaint that those who were intimidated in polling stations cannot report the personators. We want an effective and reliable electoral system that can resist deliberate abuse.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I want to deal with a few points that have been made during this debate, but first of all I congratulate MrHussey for moving the motion.
Of course, Sinn Féin wishes to run away from this debate. We have seen the Nelson-like behaviour of its Members in the Chamber today as they claim "Electoral fraud, what is electoral fraud? We have never heard of this; it does not affect our party." It was said earlier that that is akin to the response at the Bloody Sunday inquiry by one of Sinn Féin’s members last week, when he made it clear that he did not know whether MartinMcGuinness was ever involved in the IRA —

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member must keep to the motion.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Since we are talking about fraud, and about people turning a blind eye to it, I would have thought that I was keeping to the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maybe that is the attitude of Sinn Féin: it is not a matter on which the party wishes to have any information or any opinion. Of course, that is embarrassing to its members.
MrMcNamee quoted the RUC when he said that there was no evidence of challenges. Of course there was no evidence when there was a mob outside a polling station and people inside fingering those who might dare to make challenges. On the logic that MrMcNamee has used today, there was no such thing as the Omagh bomb, since the RUC could not find any evidence against people because of intimidation; there was no such thing as the Enniskillen bomb because no evidence could be provided —

Ms Jane Morrice: The subject is electoral fraud.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am addressing the point about no evidence. Of course there is evidence, and it has been quoted here today. Examples include the number of people who have been taken off the electoral register after challenges have been made; the multiple applications from one address; and confirmation from the Electoral Office of widespread evidence that postal votes are claimed fraudulently. Of course there is evidence. There would be far more of it if Sinn Féin/IRA was not backed up by an army of thugs to ensure that evidence could not be brought to light.
We can always rest assured that in its hour of need, Sinn Féin will be ably propped up by the PUP.
We also had an example of grammatical fraud today from Mr Ervine, who talked about the "patheticism" of this motion.

A Member: Have you looked the word up?

Mr Sammy Wilson: I assure the Member that there is no such word in the dictionary.
Then, in an attempt to deflect criticism from his friends in Sinn Féin, Mr Ervine focused on the Unionist Benches. Unionists also use this tactic, and his refrain was gladly taken up by MrsNelis in what some might call an historical speech — it was more of an hysterical speech, and it involved very little history.
Mrs Nelis claimed that Unionists had introduced a property qualification, but that was not the case. A property qualification had always been a stipulation, even under British electoral law until 1949. When that property qualification was abandoned in Northern Ireland in the 1960s, it did not make a button of difference to the outcome of elections. The property qualification applied to Catholics as well as to Protestants, though she chose to overlook that in her hysterical rant in which she attempted to justify her own party’s position. There is no justification for the fraud that has been perpetrated, mostly on behalf of IRA/Sinn Féin. It owes the fact that it has won seats on councils, in the Northern Ireland Assembly and at Westminster to what can only be described as systematic fraud against the electorate in Northern Ireland. No amount of support from other people, who might have a common agenda with it, will ever cover this up, nor will the turning of blind eyes.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. There has been some misunderstanding — evidence, evidence, evidence. Hansard will record that on three occasions I referred to evidence of abuse of postal and proxy voting. That evidence was supported by the RUC, the Chief Electoral Officer and those academics who were asked to contribute to the review of the electoral process here and examine the allegations of electoral fraud. I did not say that there was no evidence of electoral fraud. However, I did say that there was no evidence of Sinn Féin’s electoral successes being due to electoral fraud or of Sinn Féin being the only party involved in electoral fraud. In my opinion, all of the parties referred to have been involved in electoral fraud.
Therefore, let there be no misinterpretation of what I said. I recognise the existence of electoral fraud and how it was addressed. There are, of course, many anecdotes about electoral fraud. We heard Mr P Robinson’s account of six people in a one-bedroom flat. — [Interruption].

Ms Mary Nelis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear Mr McNamee because of the noise coming from a corner of the Chamber.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Pat McNamee: Mr Robinson did not tell us whether the six people voted or the location of the flat. Was it in East Belfast, Upper Bann or somewhere else?

Mr Nigel Dodds: It was in west Belfast.

Mr Pat McNamee: The Member did not tell us whether these people had actually voted and, if so, whom they voted for. I accept that electoral fraud exists, but there is no evidence to suggest that electoral fraud is down to Sinn Féin alone. Academics working in this area, who contributed to the review, had little doubt that,
"Sinn Féin’s successes have far more to do with genuine increased popularity and demographic factors than with large-scale electoral abuse."
I am quoting directly from paragraph 5.1 of a Northern Ireland Office publication ‘Administering Elections in Northern Ireland — Report of the Elections Review, October 1998’. The Northern Ireland Office obviously gives some credibility to those comments as it has included them in the report. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Mr Pat McNamee: The academics also suggest
"the accusations of abuse have had much to do with the disappointments experienced by other parties, in particular —
[Interruption]

Ms Mary Nelis: On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. There is tremendous noise and absolute disrespect for your position from the Benches opposite. I wish to dissociate myself from such disrespect.

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask Members to pay attention to what the Member has said, and I ask Mr McNamee to continue.

Mr Pat McNamee: I will attempt to continue.
The people who contributed to the review, which was published by the Northern Ireland Office, suggested that
"the accusations of abuse had much to do with the disappointments experienced by other parties who do not wish to admit a decline in support."
They concluded that the academic world expects to see Sinn Féin improve its position still further, whatever measures are brought in to tighten up the electoral process. — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Pat McNamee: I ask Members to support the amendment. I will finish, because the volume at which I have to attempt to speak in order to overcome the noise is unacceptable.

Mr Derek Hussey: First, I wish to address the issues that have been raised concerning the amendment. I find the amendment unnecessary, and if Members had listened carefully to my speech on the motion, they would have noted that issues raised in the amendment had already been addressed. The entire process was mentioned. Registration issues were addressed, with a call for a more proactive approach from the Chief Electoral Officer in order to ensure full representation on the register.
The resources issue referred to by Mr McNamee was addressed, with a call for appropriate staffing, funding and equipment to enable the Chief Electoral Officer to fulfil the purpose of scrutiny in which he and his officers are engaged.
Mr McNamee referred to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report, stating that there was little evidence in it. Polling agents have a problem of duty, vis-à-vis their legal ability to apprehend someone in the course of personation. Mr McNamee forgot to consider the reasons for difficulty in presenting cases of personation, mentioned in paragraph 69 of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s report. The words, directly quoted from the document, which Mr McNamee edited in his presentation, are
"terrorist threat, intimidation in some areas".
Dr McCrea also referred to this problem from his own experiences.
I thank Dr Hendron for his contribution and agree with him and Mr Ervine, and others, that electoral malpractice is not new. Perhaps, in the days when there were just two major parties, each party’s efforts were cancelled out by those of the other. I also agree with DrHendron that such electoral malpractice was not carried out on the massive organised scale that we see now and I am glad that he supports the idea of photographic identification.
Dr McCrea and others have referred to the lack of Government action; I welcome their comments.

Mr Oliver Gibson: The Member will be aware that in the recent Assembly election there were several incidents in West Tyrone in which people who were intending to carry out voting fraud disappeared when challenged. There is no method of recording the number of people who attempted such fraud. The votes that were recorded under protest were never challenged, and the electoral office took no action. The pink forms were produced and put in envelopes, unchallenged, but after the election no action was taken in respect of persons who carried out electoral fraud.

Mr Derek Hussey: I thank my associate — I was going to say Colleague — from West Tyrone. I would not wish the Assembly to think that we were getting into a West Tyrone-only scenario — an accusation that has been made in the past.
Mr Neeson referred to the need for photographic identification and local checking of absent vote applications; I agree totally. I also agree with what Mr Ervine said about past electoral malpractice. To some extent, no party in the Assembly is lily white; we cannot account for all the actions of those who are willing to work and expend their best efforts for our respective causes. Mr Ervine said that he would support the amendment; I suggest that I dealt with the issues mentioned in the amendment when proposing the motion.

Mr David Ervine: I acknowledge the fact that the Member addressed the issues in his commentary. However, the motion that the Assembly will vote on does not mention registration or ballot process.

Mr Derek Hussey: I trust that the record of our debate will be considered by the Chief Electoral Officer.
Mr Ervine also put forward the idea of political instruction. I am sure that we would all agree that our young people should be properly instructed in the political situation in which they find themselves. I hope that I have already addressed the points that he made about the value of the vote.
Mrs Carson referred to the Sinn Féin proposal for the removal of the requirement for any means of identification, as mentioned in the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Why does Sinn Féin favour such a move? Mr Bradley has written evidence that the Government recognise the problem; they promise remedies, but do not deliver. Other Members have referred to that problem. I sympathise with him over the "follow-the-postman scenario"; that is a frequent complaint in my constituency as well.
Mr P Robinson talked about the long-fingering of the issue under Mo Mowlam. I hope that the present Secretary of State can reinvigorate the issue and take it forward with a bit more haste.
Mrs Nelis questioned my sincerity. I can assure her that I am totally sincere in bringing this to the House. I have not been afraid to admit to a knowledge of electoral malpractice in the past. The "Vote early, vote often" scenario existed in our society. It existed on both sides of a simple two-party system at that time, and I do not in any way defend that. Mrs Nelis commented on the intimidation, and indeed murder, of electoral workers. I wonder in which constituency a census enumerator was murdered in 1981. With regard to electoral fraud, I wonder whether any person in the House is aware of eight voters living in a two-bedroomed house. Mrs Nelis said that electoral fraud was perpetrated to ensure electoral supremacy. Do two wrongs make a right? Should somebody continue with such a scenario in a militaristic, organised way now?
Mr Kennedy referred to absent voters, people working and living elsewhere. I can think of one of my constituents: if you are living and working in New York it is difficult to go to the polling station in person. Perhaps that is the reason that person has a proxy vote, in spite of his being a naturalised American citizen.
Mr Shannon referred to derelict properties. I suggested that there should be some way in which derelict properties can be identified to ensure that nobody on the register can claim to live in one.
Finally, Mr Wilson, with his usual exuberance, finished off the debate in fine fettle. I will leave it at that.
The old call, as we all know, was "Vote early, vote often", but what we are trying to achieve in this debate and in the motion that I have placed before the House is the call that headlines the report of the elections review of October 1998, namely that we vote early and vote fairly.
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Main question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland to report on his plans to counter electoral fraud.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Madam Deputy Speaker]

East Belfast Redevelopment Areas: Commercial Premises Valuation

Mr Peter Robinson: I am delighted to see that the Finance Minister has come back to the Chamber. I hope that he has left his grumpy head behind and is not going to be tossing his head impatiently on this occasion. I hope that he will give us a fair hearing and respond to the debate.
Although the motion refers to East Belfast, it is just as relevant to many other parts of the Province, particularly other parts of the city of Belfast. It might be worthwhile to start with an explanation of how a valuation is determined for a property. The Valuation and Lands Agency (VLA) will inspect it. It will make a determination of the net annual valuation based on the size and type of property, its location and the attractiveness of the setting or, if it is a commercial property, its attractiveness in commercial terms. I should say that I have a background in estate agency, which I left to enter politics.
The valuation of a property determines what portion of the rate being levied across the Province that the property owner pays. As a consequence, it determines the amount that the holder of the property will pay towards services that are provided at a district level or at a regional level. Depending on how much the district or regional rate increases, the ratepayer will be exercised to a greater or lesser extent. Certainly, when a substantial increase in the regional rate was proposed, it set alarm bells ringing for many in the commercial sector.
The case that I bring to the attention of the Assembly does not relate to the level of increase. However, during discussions with traders after the levying of the increase, it was drawn to my attention that special problems occur in redevelopment areas.
If we assume that the VLA has made an accurate assessment of the net annual valuation of a property, that valuation can be changed by a change of circumstances in the area, or by something relating directly to the property. Something interesting happens at that stage, because if one applies for planning permission to extend the property, one can be absolutely certain of what will happen a few months later. One will receive a letter, visit or phone call from the VLA. It will say that the agency would like to carry out a new assessment of the net annual value of the property. Proactively, the VLA — spurred on, no doubt, by the Minister responsible for finance — will ensure that the new net annual valuation reflects the circumstances that then exist. Therefore, if one improves one’s property by extending it, one can be sure that proactive action will be taken by the agency concerned.
If, for instance, the use classification of a property is changed, again one can be sure that a new assessment will follow, to check whether the new use to which one has put the property has a higher net annual valuation than previously. Again, the VLA will move proactively to ensure that if additional money is required from the ratepayer, it will be received.
However, if there are elements to the detriment of one’s company, the valuation officer does not seem to know the address or telephone number, nor does he bother to visit.
There are many circumstances in which there will be a detriment to a property. That will arise where there is no proactivity on the part of the Valuation and Lands Agency, the Rates Collection Agency or the Department of Finance and Personnel or whoever has energised the VLA on the earlier occasions.
I draw the attention of the Assembly specifically to the issue of redevelopment. Take, for example, a street of shops that is servicing a local community. The example that I shall give is the Castlereagh Road — an incidence that came up recently.
An arterial route and several shops serve the community in that area. The Department, through its agency, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, decides that it is going to redevelop the area. No doubt, the aim is to improve the quality of life for the people who live there and to improve the housing standards that they will then enjoy.
When it happens, all the customers for those shops are removed from the area. That is not something that crept up on the VLA without notice. It is not as if it is not able to determine that there will be a massive impact on the shopkeepers there. It knows it, and it knows it through the same kind of procedures that tell it when someone is extending his shop or premises.
The VLA knows that if a planning application is approved, there will be an increase in the value of that property, so it reassesses it. It knows that if a redevelopment notice is posted there will also be an impact on a property. The VLA should, therefore, proactively follow to ensure that the rates are reduced for that individual and avoid the hardship for those who have to go to the agency and ask it to carry out that reinspection.
The experience of almost everyone that I have met in dealing with the issue is of an uphill struggle to get the VLA to accept the detriment to a property as a result of that kind of thing. The meagre reduction that has taken place, in the cases where there has been a successful outcome, has not, in any way, compensated for the reduction in income that has occurred as a result of redevelopment.
The outcome, therefore, is fairly clear. I am asking the Minister — and I do not ask or expect him to jump to any conclusions today — to consider looking at how, proactively, he can ensure that the VLA inspects and assesses the change in the net annual valuation of a property because of redevelopment. The VLA knows that it is happening. It could easily do it in the same way that it can when a planning application is made. The VLA knows that more money is available should it reinspect. Can he set a procedure in motion to ensure that that happens?
I also ask that, if he does that, he take the further step and ensure that the procedures, if the person is successful, ensure a satisfactory outcome. The Minister really must reassess whether adequate reductions are being made, even if only on a temporary basis. One must assume, if redevelopment is taking place, that the customer base will return, but those years can be crucial to the livelihoods of the shopkeepers involved.
If we are to have a thriving community when redevelopment does take place, and we are to have a group of shops after the new houses are built and the people return, it is vital that we do not leave those shops hanging out there, as they are at present.
At my meeting with the traders on the Castlereagh Road, they spoke, one after the other, of the hardships that they are facing as a result of redevelopment. They also spoke of the extent to which they would need to spend their own money to challenge professionally the valuation of their properties.
Whatever they are selling — sweets, cigarettes, clothes, books — their expertise is not in valuation. Their ability to argue their case is limited by the nature of their profession. Therefore, they have to buy in the expertise in order to challenge the valuation of their property — a costly endeavour for them. Such are the conundrums that they face. Their funds are reduced because their customer base has been removed. They have to use their own money to challenge the valuation of their property.
Will the Minister look at the procedures, with a view to making them more user-friendly and less intimidating for people who wish to challenge the valuations? Will he also make sure that when a redevelopment occurs — wherever it is — the valuation office will reassess the valuation of the properties that will be most affected by it?

Mr David Ervine: I commend the Member for drawing the House’s attention to an issue that is causing great difficulty. Many people wish that their area could be enhanced, but even after an area such as the one that I come from has been enhanced, the developers usually knock down three houses and build just one in their place. The problem does not exist only during redevelopment — when houses are vacated and the area becomes a wasteland — it continues beyond that point.
Such communities did not ask for the increase in traffic, as people drive by to the many supermarkets that have grown up, like small towns, in east Belfast. We cannot decry the shops; they bring jobs and people seem to like them. However, those who live on the ribbon development that my Colleague spoke about suffer the loss of passing trade because parking at out-of-town shops is more convenient. They also suffer because they live in areas that have a low level of home ownership. For example, a shop owner might, for his own sake, enhance the property, but he will receive no appreciation for his efforts. Mr Robinson described the position well. If someone wants to renovate their property when the area is being redeveloped, someone will appear quickly on the doorstep to do an upward revaluation. When the area is blighted — I think "blight" is the correct word — no one rushes to their aid.
The redevelopment of an area is not just about giving people nice houses to live in, although that is valuable. It is about retaining the services and the points of contact that have been part of the community. Not only are the residents sometimes scattered to the four winds, but circumstances are created in which traders and other owners of commercial property cannot compete. The point of contact for their services has gone.
Recently, we spoke about out-of-town developments and about a possible need to restrict large developments. There was relative consensus in the House that that was the wrong way to go if we were to hold communities together and retain services. MrRobinson mentioned the CastlereaghRoad, which is as good an example as any; at night, it is like a canyon. That is also true of the NewtownardsRoad and the AlbertbridgeRoad; there is little activity on them. No one is being drawn to those places; people are being drawn to other places.
The community has taken a good kicking, whether from the planners or from those who can adjust the rateable values to meet the needs that undoubtedly exist, and I ask the Minister to pay specific attention. In fairness, Mr Robinson, in moving the motion, did draw attention to other places — it is not just a question of east Belfast. Many areas in Northern Ireland suffer similar problems.

Sir Reg Empey: I want to make an observation and I hope the Member agrees with me. Although this debate is focused on valuations, a multi-agency approach is required. Planning has an objective of securing arterial routes. Knowing that there is a reduction in the number of people living in the area, you can replace the people who go to the shops if there is somewhere for them to park and shop in the area. That is how the Newtownards Road and the Cregagh Road have survived for years. It is extremely difficult to get that multi-agency approach because of the rigidities of Roads Service and Planning Service.

Mr David Ervine: The Member has made the point more succinctly than I could have, and I agree. I also have a feeling that the Member who introduced this to the House would not disagree. He is quite capable of speaking for himself, of course.
There is great deal of suffering, and until now it has been largely ignored. Now there is somewhere for the issue to be raised, and there is a receptive Minister who, one hopes, will take cognisance of all the difficulties and be prepared to ensure that those difficulties ease.
I have a final point to draw to the attention of this House. I hope you do not rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, because this expressly deals with the issue of commercial property. Recently, I have been reminded of the difficulty of homeowners in a redevelopment area who find themselves being asked to pay a Housing Executive rent. The Housing Executive will charge them a rent for a substantial time before vesting takes place. When the tenants get the value of their house, they find that they have frittered away a substantial amount paying rent for a house that they own. There are quite a number of issues in redevelopment areas that need serious consideration.
In the future we will have to take a different approach to redevelopment. We need to introduce the concepts pointed out by my Colleague, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. We need a holistic approach, cutting across departmental lines and ensuring that the people, whether traders or residents of redevelopment areas, get a better crack of the whip.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am not going to go over all the points that have been made, as that would simply be a repetition.
From my experience of the issue, let me note some of the excuses that have been made by the Department for refusing to act on this issue. It is not a new issue. Since I was first elected 20 years ago, has been an ongoing sore in redevelopment areas. The first time I came across it was in Castlereagh Street, where 11,000 homes in east Belfast were going to be affected by the redevelopment proposals. Arterial routes especially were going to be affected by the removal of such a large part of the population.
However, the Department’s excuse, made time and time again, does not stand up to scrutiny. Mr Robinson has already dealt with the question of resources. The Department very often says that it cannot respond, because so many properties are affected by this that it simply does not have the resources to revalue properties downwards when redevelopment areas are declared.
However, as has been pointed out, properties that have been improved can be dealt with fairly quickly. I would appreciate it if the Minister could give us some indication of why, since most of the shops involved provide local services, example cases can not be taken and then applied across a range of commercial properties in an area. That would mean that every property would not have to be individually revalued, and, at the same time, cognisance could be taken of the effect that redevelopment has on commercial activity.
The second argument made to me is that redevelopment in adjacent streets may well affect part of the business of shops on arterial routes. However, that is not where they get all of their business from anyway; much of it comes from outside. The fact that they are on an arterial route means that a great deal of their business is left intact, and the removal of some streets behind those shops does not greatly affect the valuation of the properties.
First, one has only to listen to what traders say about their takings to realise that that is not the case. Secondly, it must also be accepted that many of these redevelopment areas cover many properties. Mr Peter Robinson mentioned the example of the Castlereagh Road. Approximately 700 houses adjacent to the shops on the Castlereagh Road have been removed, which represents a substantial customer base.
Mr David Ervine mentioned the Newtownards Road. The present proposal for redevelopment on this road — in fact, there are several proposals, which have rolled into each other over the years — will involve over 800 houses being knocked down. Similar amounts of houses have been knocked down in redevelopments that have just finished in areas adjacent to it. A substantial customer base has been taken away, and to say that redevelopment affects commercial properties only in a very small way is not true.
It does not matter whether you are talking about east or north Belfast, you only have to look at the tracts of areas involved to see that a large number of properties have been removed and, therefore, that a large number of customers have been removed.
The other thing that must be borne in mind is that many of those shops may depend on outside trade. However, whenever redevelopment takes place, it not only moves the existing customer base, it also blights an area; it makes an area unattractive. People do not feel happy about going into an area that seems to be derelict.
Very often there are areas of waste ground; frequently there is rubble lying around. As a result of the isolation, there could be anti-social behaviour, which, in turn, makes it appear even more derelict. Therefore, people steer away from it.
The Department’s argument that the removal of the houses in the immediate vicinity will not leave businesses without outside custom coming in is not an acceptable one. It is clear that people are not prepared to come into areas that have been blighted by redevelopment, because they do not look attractive and because of the kind of behaviour that often goes on in them. Because of that blight, people are not happy about taking cars in, for example, and leaving them parked in semi-derelict streets adjacent to commercial properties.
A third reason, which I have heard from the Department in the past, has been that it is only a temporary arrangement. However, anyone who has lived through the redevelopment process will know that it takes about eight years from the time that a redevelopment area is declared until the redevelopment and new properties are finally put in place. It takes that long for the vesting, relocating people, properties being knocked down, planning permissions being sorted out and getting builders on site.
Areas take eight years to go through that transition, and adjacent commercial properties are detrimentally affected during the entire period. For the Department to argue that it sorts itself out fairly quickly, and that revaluing downwards and then upwards again would tie up resources, fails to recognise how long the redevelopment process takes. Therefore, it is important that the Minister makes some response to the genuine claims of those people who try to hang on in redevelopment areas, so that services are still there when the area is redeveloped.
It is part of planning policy to attract people back into the inner city and to develop on brownfield sites. People will not be attracted if there are no local services. Unfortunately, redeveloping and making inner-city sites attractive again tends to make it more difficult for services to survive in the interim period.

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank Mr Robinson for bringing this matter to the House and, in particular, for drawing attention to some significant issues and considerations in relation to valuation.
There are a couple of points that may need to be set in context, particularly the question of the basis of rateable valuations. A property’s rateable value is based on the rental value that the property would be expected to achieve in its actual state and circumstances. That is based on a valuation date, and the current valuation date for all commercial properties is 1 April 1995, which was the valuation date before the last revaluation. I have already said that there will be a further non-domestic revaluation, which the Assembly has agreed to, effective from 1 April 2003.
Properties were last revalued on rents that existed on 1 April 1995. Accordingly, the rateable values reflect the social, economic and environmental circumstances that prevailed at that time. I recognise that particular point; it is true for all properties. It is common to the valuation base of all properties, even new properties that might be developed and are subject to planning permission, or even, as Mr Robinson said, to valuers who might inspect properties and try to put a valuation on extensions. Every valuation refers to that valuation date in 1995. That is part of the valuation system. Obviously, when there is a revaluation, all ratepayers should be charged in direct proportion to the rental value of the property that they occupy.
It is important that a uniformity of liability is established, although I recognise that it is eroded over time because there are differential shifts in rental values from one property to another, and from one location to another, for various reasons — redevelopment being one of them. That is one of the reasons why we need regular revaluations. They are the most sensible way to ensure that valuations are as reflective as possible of real and prevailing circumstances.
However, I make the point again that the basis of valuation is not just pure assumption by the valuers. It is based on rental value. It essentially represents the rent the premises would command if let on the open market at a fixed point in time. That represents approximately 40% of rental value, which in turn averages about 8% of capital value.
One could argue that rates therefore equate to about 3% of capital. I am not saying that to minimise the significance of the rate burden, particularly for businesses that may be trading in marginal circumstances — not least because of changes in their circumstances.
There is limited scope between revaluations to take changes in economic circumstances into account. Contrary to what Sammy Wilson said, I believe that if we were continually revising assessments up and down to reflect all sorts of changes — either in the particular trading circumstances of given businesses or underlying and market conditions — the valuation system would soon become unworkable. The concentration at present is therefore on trying to establish regular and timely revaluations.
However, highly localised factors that could be combined with some physical change can be reflected in altered assessments between revaluations. I take it from what Mr Peter Robinson said that he has some knowledge of that, but he believes — or the people who have spoken to him believe — that such reassessments have led only to fairly marginal adjustments in the valuations.
Anything that is being done here is constrained by the rating law, and that governs the conduct of the valuers. It is the rating law that governs this; it is not primarily a matter of resources. It is not a case of the Valuation and Lands Agency choosing not to do something just because it has not got the resources, or of the Department choosing not to allow the agency to do it by not allocating it the necessary resources. A change in the character of an area is really a matter to be picked up in the revaluation.
There is an appeals process. People can appeal a revaluation and, if they are not satisfied, the Lands Tribunal is an independent court in that regard. If people are aggrieved with a rating assessment they can make an application to the district valuer and, if they are still not satisfied, they can appeal to the Commissioner of Valuation and then to the Lands Tribunal.
The district valuer in Belfast is not aware of any application for revision of the valuation list on grounds of location in, or close proximity to, a redevelopment area. Similarly, there are no appeals to the Commissioner of Valuation or the Lands Tribunal on this issue. Similar points apply to domestic properties. That issue was touched on by David Ervine in particular.
Given that the circumstances of the terms and evaluations are those that prevailed at the time of revaluation, little can be done to change the circumstances between revaluations, as some Members are seeking. Some reductions have taken place, and I will write to Mr Robinson with examples. They may be similar to some of the cases that people have brought to his attention. From the information that is available to me, I do not recognise the problem as acutely as Mr Robinson does. However, I recognise that people believe that revaluations should take place on the basis of any change in their trading circumstances.
No Member mentioned whether there were significant changes in the rents charged on some of these properties. Rents are relevant. If there were localised revaluations they would be based on the rental values that existed at the revaluation date, which, in this case, was 1995. That applies to new valuations to new properties as well as to any other property. They have than in common.
If we were to move in the way that Members want, it would raise the issue of whether we would be working from a uniform base. That is important — not least with regard to the regional rate.
Some Members said that the system is less than responsive and that they find that it is unable to make the revisions and changes in people’s circumstances that they would like to see. The law restricts on that. If there are other ways in which the Valuation and Lands Agency is not considered to be user-friendly — as has been suggested — I, and the agency, will examine them.
Some Members referred to the benefits of professional representation. The Valuation and Lands Agency does not require people to be professionally represented, and it does not favour those who are. The agency is interested in fairness, and the valuer will always speak to the ratepayer no matter who else is involved. If there are any issues or grievances about the treatment of individuals, properties or cases that Mr Robinson wants to draw to my attention I will be happy to take those up with the agency.
I did not know the area of east Belfast the Member was concerned about, but I now know that it is the Castlereagh Road. The areas that are formally designated or recognised as redevelopment areas tend to be those with domestic properties. There are five such areas, and the Castlereagh Road is not one of them. Members talked colloquially about redevelopment areas rather than meaning a redevelopment area as designated by a Department.
I have noted the points that Members have made. Those points strengthen the case for ensuring that the Assembly efficiently progresses the revaluation of non-domestic properties and makes sure that there is a realistic valuation base for non-domestic rates. Revaluation is the key to that. However, I will make information available to Mr Robinson on any localised reviews that have taken place as they might assist in any representation that he may want to make about a location.
Adjourned at 6.15 pm.